MASTER 
NEGA  TIVE 
NO.  93-81401 


MICROFILMED  1993 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or 
other  reproductions  of  copyrighted  material. 

Under  certain  conditions  specified  in  the  law,  libraries  and 
archives  are  authorized  to  furnish  a  photocopy  or  other 
reproduction.  One  of  these  specified  conditions  is  that  the 
photocopy  or  other  reproduction  is  not  to  be  "used  for  any 
purpose  other  than  private  study,  scholarship,  or 
fesearch."  If  a  user  makes  a  request  for,  or  later  uses,  a 
photocopy  or  reproduction  for  purposes  in  excess  of  fair 
use,"  that  user  may  be  liable  for  copyright  infringement. 

This  institution  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to  accept  a 
copy  order  if.  In  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


A  UTHOR: 


JONES,  THOMAS 
MADISON 


TITLE: 


CASE  CONSTRUCTIONS 
OFSIMILISANDITS... 

PLACE' 

BALTIMORE,  MD. 

DATE: 

1903 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARGET 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


'1 

* 

•  i 

'i 

1 


877 ,56 
Z8 

▼A 


it 


:i 


Jones,  Thomas  Madison,  1660- 

Case  constructions  of  slmlHs  and  Its  compounds 
•  ••  by  Thomas  Madison  Jones  ...    Baltimore,  the 
Lord  Baltimore  press  «1903> 

hS  p.    2U  cm. 

Thesis.  (Ph.  D  J  Johns  Hopkins, 
Volume  of  theses. 


* 


^w 


*  Master  Negative  # 


iMiH 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 
REDUCTION    RATIO:__iZ^. 


FILM     SIZE:  3  S ^J^''  __ 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA   "iR    IB    IIB 

DATE     FILMED: __^:__13 INITIALS____^£1_ 

HLMEDBY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC  WQQDBRIDGE.  CIV 


D 


Association  for  information  and  image  iNanagement 

1100  Wayne  Avenue.  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring.  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

I         2        3        4         5        6         7        8        9        10       11       12       13 


14       15    mm 

iiliiiiliiiil 


Inches 


1 


1.0 

1^  1  ^-3      1  2-^ 
1^  JUm     12.9 

I.I 

Urn 

*^      140 

•-      w 

k.k.1. 

1.4 

1  ^-^ 

1.8 
1.6 

1.25 

II  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  II  I 
5 


MnNUFfiCTURED  TO  fillM  STPNDflRDS 
BY  PPPLIED  IMfiGE,  INC. 


CASE  CONSTRUCTIONS 

OF 

SIMILIS  AND  ITS  COMPOUNDS 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED   TO  THE  BOARD  OF  UNIVERSITY   STUDIES  OF  THE 

JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  IN  CONFORMITY  WITH 

THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


BY 


THOMAS  MADISON  JONES 

Profesaor  of  Greek  in  Randolph- Macon  College 

1903 


THS  FRIBDENWALD  COMPANY 
BALTIMORE,   MD.,   U.  S.  A. 


'.AMi 


LITERATURE  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 

The  literature  of  the  subject  of  the  case  constructions  ofsimilis 
and  its  compounds  is  not  extensive.  Most  of  the  grammars  dis- 
miss the  matter  in  a  few  words.  Kiihner,  2-328,  and  Bennett, 
App.  to  Latin  Grammar  323  (cf.  remarks  on  page  139  of  Teach- 
ing of  Latin  and  Greek  in  the  Secondary  Schools,  by  Bennett  and 
Bristol),  have  notes  of  some  length.  Haase,  Note  550  to  Reisig 
treats  the  subject  with  considerable  fullness  and  in  his  Vorle- 
sungen  iiber  lateinische  Sprachwissenschaft  2,  134-142  a  still 
more  extended  discussion  is  found.  Madvig,  Cic.  De  Fin.  5-12, 
deals  with  the  subject  for  Cicero  mainly,  and  RitschI,  Op.  2-570 
(Rh.  M.  7-583)  and  579  (Rh.  M.  8-159),  discusses  it  for  Plautus. 
Also  in  Op.  3-261  (cf.  Suet.  Reliqq.  Reifferscheid  522)  he  treats 
it  for  the  fragments  of  the  early  poets.  References  of  less  im- 
portance are  given  as  occasion  requires. 


TEXTS  USED. 


In  this  investigation,  while  for  some  authors  several  editions 
were  consulted,  the  texts  mainly  or  exclusively  used  are  the  fol- 
lowing. For  the  fragments  of  the  early  poets,  Ribbeck's  Scaeni- 
cae  Romanorum  Poesis  Fragmenta  with  Miiller's  Q.  Enni  Carmi- 
num  Reliquiae  and  Bahrens'  Fragmenta  Poetarum  Romanorum. 
For  Plautus,  the  Ritschl  edition  of  Lowe,  Gotz,  and  Scholl  with 
constant  reference  to  other  recent  texts,  and  for  Terence,  Umpf en- 
bach,  Dziatzko,  Fleckeisen,  and  Tyrrell.  For  Cornificius,  Marx ; 
for  Varro's  Lingua  Latina,  Muller,  and  for  his  De  Re  Rustica, 
Keil.  For  Cicero,  Miiller;  for  Lucretius,  Brieger  with  Lach- 
mann  and  Munro.  For  Vergil,  Ribbeck ;  for  Livy,  Weissenborn ; 
for  Lucan,  Hosius ;  for  Silius  Italicus,  Bauer;  for  Martial,  Gil- 
bert and  Lindsay ;  for  Quintilian,  Bonnell ;  for  Juvenal,  Fried- 
lander  ;  for  Tacitus,  Halm ;  for  Suetonius,  Roth ;  for  Lactan- 
tius,  Brandt ;  for  Firmicus,  KroU  and  Skutsch ;  and  for  the  Vul- 
gate, the  edition  of  Turin,  1851. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Method  Pursued 9 

Rule  OF  Old  Latin  Grammarians — Discussion 10 

Rule  or  Madvig — Discussion 12 

Rule  of  Haase— Discussion 13 

View  that  Similis  with  Genitive  is  a  Substantive — Discussion.  .  23 

Table  of  Statistics 28 

Remarks  on  Usage  of  Individual  Authors.     Dative  in  Plautus 

AND  Terence 33 

Results  Yielded  by  Statistics.     Origin,  Growth,  and  Decline 

OF  the  Genitive  with  Similis 40 

Construction  Not  Influenced  by  Position 44 

Construction  of  Compounds  of  Similis ...  45 

Rare  Use  of  Other  Constructions  than  Genitive  and  Dative  . .  45 


CASE  CONSTRUCTIONS  OF  SIMILIS  AND  ITS 

COMPOUNDS. 

The  familiar  construction  of  similis  and  its  compounds  with 
both  the  genitive  and  the  dative  case  is  the  subject  with  which 
this  paper  is  concerned.  One  way  of  approaching  this  subject 
is  through  the  fundamental  meaning  of  the  cases.  Thus  Weis- 
senborn,  in  accordance  with  the  original  signification  of  the  cases, 
as  accepted  by  him,  conceived  of  the  genitive  as  giving  rise  to  the 
similarity,  and  of  the  dative  as  receiving  the  similarity  from 
without.*  This  method  of  approach  is  avoided  as  both  difficult 
and  uncertain.  Unsatisfactory  likewise  is  the  treatment  which, 
as,  for  instance,  that  of  Haase,'  merges  the  double  case  construc- 
tion of  similis  with  the  same  double  case  construction  of  such  a 
group  of  adjectives  as  vicinus,  socius,  amicus,  and  others,  so  as 
to  make  the  same  reasoning  apply  to  all  of  them.  For,  however 
much  these  adjectives  may  have  in  common,  it  is  not  at  all  ob- 
vious that  the  same  explanation  applies  to  the  genitive  with  ami- 
cus and  the  genitive  with  similis. 

A  better  method  of  treatment,  it  would  seem,  is  to  observe 
carefully  the  case  constructions  of  similis  in  a  large  range  of 
Latin  authors  of  various  periods  and  departments,  and,  by  the 
usage  of  these  authors,  not  only  to  test  the  various  distinctions 
which  have  been  set  up  between  the  genitive  and  the  dative,  but 
also,  if  possible,  to  arrive  at  the  real  diflference  between  the  two 
constructions.  This,  therefore,  is  the  method  pursued  in  the 
present  investigation,  a  study  which  finds  ample  ground  in  the 
following  brief  outline  of  views  on  the  question  in  hand. 

The  authorities  on  the  subject  of  the  double  case  construction 
of  similis  fall  into  these  classes : 

1.  Those  who  note  the  double  construction  without  remark. 

2.  Those  who  note  the  double  construction  denying  diflference 
in  meaning  but  explaining  variation, 

(a)  as  a  matter  of  period. 

>  See  Haase,  note  550  to  Reisig.  Cf.  Haase,  page  14  of  this  paper.  Cf .  also 
Gossrau,  Lat.  Sprachlehre,  p.  810,  and  Kuhnast,  Liv.  Syn.,  p.  134. 

'  Vorlesungen  iiber  lateinische  Sprachwissenschaf t,  2-135.  Cf.  p.  13  of 
this  paper. 


10     Case  Coxstructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds 

(b)  as  a  matter  of  objects  involved  in  the  comparison. 

(c)  as  a  matter  of  euphony.' 

3.  Those  who  note  the  double  construction  and  affirm  a  differ- 
ence in  meaning  to  the  effect, 

(a)  that  the  genitive  denotes  inner  likeness,  the  dative 
outer  likeness. 

(b)  that  sitnilis  with  the  genitive  denotes  *image'  {Eben- 
Uldy  Ahhild),  with  the  dative  simple  comparison. 

(c)  that  similis  with  the  genitive  is  a  substantive,  with 
the  dative  an  adjective. 

(d)  that,  the  explanation  being  found  in  the  theory  of  the 
cases,^  the  genitive  is 

(1)  objective,*  or 

(2)  partitive*  or 

(3)  genitive  of  origin. ' 

The  records  of  the  discussion  go  back  to  Flavins  Caper,®  a  gram- 
marian of  the  second  century,  who  states  his  rule  thus:  Illius 
similis  ad  mores  refertuvy  ilU  similis  ad  vultum, 

Diomedes,  under  uses  of  the  genitive,  writes,  Sim,ilis  sum  tiii 
morihis\  and  under  uses  of  the  dative,  Similis  sum  iihifigura^^ 
Charisius"  notes  the  double  construction  without  explanation. 
Beda"  in  one  place  repeats  the  rule  of  Caper  and  elsewhere  states 
the  matter  thus:  Similis  sum  tui  morihus,  similis  tihi  facie}^ 
Other  references  to  the  construction  in  the  early  grammarians 
add  nothing  to  the  statement  already  given,  which  has  found 
metrical  expression  in  this  form : 

Ille  tui  similis,  mores  qui  servat  eosdem  ; 
Ille  tihi  similis,  faciem  qui  servat  eandemM 

This  old  view  is  not  without  adherents  in  later  and  even  in 
recent  years.    Weissenborn,^*  Keisig,**  Zumpt, "  Schmitz,  Midden- 

3W61flain,  quoted  by  Kiibnast,  Liv.  Syn.,  note  p.  125. 

4  See  note  1,  p.  9  of  this  paper. 

5  Haase,  Vorl.  2-135,  and  Hime,  Intr.  to  Lat.  Lang.,  2-234. 
•Reisig,  Syntaxis,  566. 

'  Weissenborn,  quoted  by  Haase,  note  550  to  Reisig. 
8  Gram.  Lat.,  Keil,  7-97.    Cf.  Drager,  1-445,  and  Drakenborch,  Llv.  6-18-3. 
»Gram.  Lat.  K.  1-311.  Wid.  1-313.  i«id.  1-108. 

"id.  7-276.  i»id.  7-288.  "Haase,  Vorl.  2-134. 

'5  Cited  by  Haase,  note  550  to  Reisig. 

"Vorl.  iiber  lat.  Spraebwissenschaft  §  376.     The  exact  references  to  the 
following  grammars  need  hardly  be  given. 
»'  Cic.  Verr.  3-160. 


•' 


Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds     11 

dorf-Griiter,  and  Feldman  (1882)  repeat  it  in  their  grammars, 
Ruddiman,  Gruber,  Heraeus  (1885)  give  it  qualified  approval, 
and  there  is  a  distinct  trace  of  it  in  no  less  an  authoritv  than 
Kiihnast,  who  says,  "Of  likeness  perceived  by  the  senses  Livy 
seems  to  use  the  dative  without  exception,"^®  though  he  holds 
elsewhere  (p.  124)  that  between  the  genitive  and  the  dative  with 
similis  no  sharp  lines  can  be  drawn.  Antoine,  too,  may  be  cited 
here,  who  says,  whenever  similis  in  Vergil  is  construed  with  the 
dative,  ^Ule  externa  taiitum  similitudine  agitnr,"  " 

This  traditional  distinction  was  first  denied  by  Vossius^'' about 
1600,  and  he  is  cited  with  approval  by  Drakenborch."  Others 
who  deny  it  in  their  grammars  are  Otto  Schulz,  Meiring,  Gossrau, 
Ferdinand  Schulz,  Drager,  and  of  course  the  advocates  of  other 
views  to  be  mentioned  hereafter. 

How  groundless  this  distinction  of  genitive  of  inner  likeness, 
dative  of  outer  likeness  is,  a  short  exhibit  will  conclusively  show» 
In  making  it  only  instances  that  seemed  certain  were  included, 
for  sometimes  it  is  not  entirely  clear  whether  internal  or  external 
likeness  is  under  consideration,  and  sometimes  both  are  involved. 
The  estimates  are  for  similis  and  its  compounds  in  all  degrees  of 
comparison.  The  genitive  of  the  personal  pronoun  and  verum  is 
excluded. 

Genitive.    Dative. 


Varro,  Cornificius, 
and  Lucretius. 


Cicero. 


Inner  likeness 3 

Outer  likeness 11 

Ratio  of  cases  of  inner  to  outer  ^£ 

likeness  with  genitive 308 

Ratio  of  cases  of  inner  to  outer  ^8^ 

I      likeness  vvitb  dative 308 

f  Inner  likeness 73 

Outer  likeness 29 

Ratio  of  cases  of  inner  to  outer  803 

"{      likeness  with  genitive 319 

Ratio  of  cases  of  inner  to  outer  1131 

likeness  with  dative 319 


8 
28 


39 
11 


As  the  ratios  show,  in  the  first  group  the  dative  as  compared 
with  the  genitive  shows  a  slight  preference  for  inner  likeness, 

"Liv.  Syn.,  p.  125.  Llvj  uses  the  genitive  very  little,  but  the  genitive  of 
outer  likeness  is  found.     See  table  p.  29. 

»»De  Casuum  Syntaxi  Vergiliana,  p.  138.  This  remark,  however,  is  just 
as  true  of  Vergil's  use  of  the  genitive.  He  uses  it  only  once  (Aen.  5-594), 
but  this  time  it  is  used  of  outer  likeness.  For  other  references  see  Haase, 
note  550  to  Reisig. 

»o  Drager,  1-445.  21  Livy,  6-13-3. 


12     Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds 


Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds     13 


while  in  Cicero  the  preference  of  the  dative  for  inner  likeness  is 
distinctly  marked. 

Madvig's"  treatment  of  the  construction  may  now  be  taken 
up.  Following  Wesenberg,'*  whom  he  credits  with  first  having 
given  the  correct  rnle,  he  not  only  rejects  what  he  calls  the 
worthless  rule  of  the  old  grammarians  about  likeness  in  character 
and  figure,  but  sets  up  a  new  distinction.  Noting  the  varying 
usage  at  different  periods,  he  observes  that  the  older  writers  and 
Cicero  in  comparing  living  beings,  especially  men  and  gods,  used 
the  genitive  with  similis,  the  dative  in  such  cases  being  so  rare 
in  Cicero  as  hardly  to  escape  suspicion;  that  in  comparing 
things,  however,  genitive  and  dative  were  indiscriminately  used, 
with  the  exception  that  hoc  simile  illi,  ei,  super iori  {mutro 
genere)  seemed  always  to  be  used  by  Cicero;  that  after  the  time 
of  Livy,  the  dative,  almost  exclusively  used  by  the  Augustan 
poets,  became  more  and  more  prevalent  in  comparing  persons. 
Koby  "  may  be  compared  for  a  statement  very  similar  to  that  of 
Madvig.  Munro*^  and  Mayor'®  seem  to  be  in  accord  with  him, 
and  Drager  "  quotes  him  with  modified  approval.  As  apparently 
following  Madvig  more  or  less  closely  in  their  grammars,  some  of 
them  even  making  the  genitive  exclusive  with  persons,  are  Gill- 
hausen,  Koziol,  Meissner,  Menge,  Putsche-Schottmuller,  Gold- 
bacher,  and  Deecke. 

Madvig^s  remark  that  the  periods  of  the  language  are  import- 
ant in  studying  the  construction  of  similis  is  well  worth  atten- 
tion. However,  his  observation  on  the  prevalence  of  the  genitive 
in  the  older  writers  in  comparing  living  beings  disregards  the 
usage  of  Varro,"  not  to  mention  constructions  in  Plautus  and 
Terence  to  be  noted  hereafter.  And  his  statement  concerning 
the  prevalence  of  the  dative  in  later  Latin,  while  in  general 
accord  with  the  facts,  is  scarcely  strong  enough.  For  Cicero  he 
makes  the  correct  statement  that,  while  in  comparing  things  the 
genitive  and  dative  are  interchangeable,  the  genitive  is  almost 
exclusive  in  comparing   persons,  though,  as  he  implies,  even  in 

"Cic.  De.  Fin.  5-12. 

"Cf.  Kuhner,  Cic.  Tusc.  1-15-34. 

«* Gram.  1317.  »  Lucr.  4-1211. 

"  Cic.  Nat.  Deo.  2-149.  «'  1-445. 

*s3ee  table  p.  29.  Varro  uses  the  genitive  only  once  in  comparing  per- 
sons, tlie  dative  seven  times.  Madvig  observes,  however,  (De.  Fin.,  ed.  of 
1876)  that  he  had  not  carefnlly  noticed  the  usage  of  Varro. 


this  special  sphere  of  the  genitive  examples  of  the  dative  are 
found." 

Madvig,  then,  apart  from  rendering  the  important  service  of 
indicating  the  general  range  of  the  constructions  with  similiSy 
hardly  does  more  than  to  give  the  ordinary  usage  of  Cicero,  and 
that  from  an  apparently  arbitrary  point  of  view.  Indeed  Haase^ 
rejects  Madvig's  conclusions  as  unsatisfactory,  and  Seyffert"  may 
be  compared  for  a  similar  opinion. 

We  reach  now  a  view  apparently  foreshadowed  by  Ramshorn,'* 
but  first  clearly  announced  by  Haase,^  who,  rejecting,  as  has  just 
been  said,  the  conclusions  of  Madvig,  sets  up  a  new  distinction. 
His  main  results,  reached  about  the  same  time  and  independently 
by  Seyffert,"  were  followed  by  Kiihner  '^  and  accepted  by  Schmalz 
and  Landgraf.**  Likewise  the  grammars  of  Meiring,  Menge, 
Berger,  Harre,  Deecke,  Holzweissig,  and  Lane  are  in  greater  or 
less  accord  with  the  statements  of  Haase.  Since  his  distinctions 
are  so  minute,  they  must  be  given  with  considerable  fullness, 
especially  as  they  are  comparatively  recent  and  are  sustained  by 
so  much  authority. 

Speaking  of  such  adjectives  as  vicinus,  propinquus,  socius^fami- 
liar  is  f  amicus,  aequalis,  par,  and  similis,  Haase  says : "  "  If  these 
words  are  construed  with  the  genitive,  it  is  evident  that  two  persons 
(or  things)  are  considered  as  belonging  together  in  a  pair,  and  the 
adjective  merely  supplies  the  ground  upon  which  the  relation  as 
a  pair  rests,  or  the  way  in  which  it  arises;  consequently,  with  the 
genitive  it  is  not  the  intention  to  express  the  quality  that  one 
object  has  with  reference  to  another,  but  the  connection  of  the 
two  which  arises  from  this  quality,  i.  e.  their  relation  as  a  pair 
of  which  the  quality  is  the  condition  ....  On  the  contrary, 
with  the  dative  the  existence  of  the  quality  is  really  asserted  as 
a  fact  not  previously  present  to  the  mind,  and  it  is  afi&rmed  that 
one  subject  has  it  with  reference  to  another  without  drawing  the 
conclusion  that  by  this  means  both  are  joined  in  a  pair  for  which 
the  supposed  quality  constitutes  the  ground.  If,  for  example, 
one  lives  in  my  neighborhood,  and  I  have  reason  to  assert  this  as 

29Drager  (1-445)  says  there  are  seven  such  cases  in  Cic.  The  table  p.  29 
shows  nine.     To  these  add  De  Or.  3-47,  mihi  ....  simillimnm. 

*>Vorl.  2,  135.  31  Cic.  Lael.  488. 

WLat.  Gram.  2-320  (1830). 

»3Note  550  to  Reisig  and  Vorl.  2,  134-142. 

"Cic.  Lael.,  p.  488  (2  ed.  1876).  35 Gram.  2-328. 

»« Note  to  Reisig  3-621.  8' Vorl.  2-135. 


14     Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds 

something  hitherto  unknown,  the  statement  is,  vicimis  mihi  est ; 
the  conclusion  follows  that  the  distance  between  us  is  not  great, 
etc.  On  the  contrary,  if  I  wish  to  say  that,  on  the  ground  of  our 
living  near  each  other,  we  are  in  the  relationship  of  neighbors, 
acquaintances,  and  friends,  the  statement  is,  vichuis  metis  est  .  . 
.  .  Consequently,  the  dative  expresses  the  perception  of  a  quality, 
the  genitive  expresses  the  mutual  relation  arising  from    the 

quality." 

"  The  same  is  true  for  similis  and  par.  If  I  wish  merely  to 
designate  relativity  and  to  say  that  on  account  of  similarity  two 
objects  belong  together,  form  a  pair,  the  one  being  a  copy  of  the 
other,  the  genitive  is  used;  on  the  contrary,  if  I  just  at  the 
moment  perceive  the  similarity,  and  that,  too,  not  in  such  a  way 
that  the  two  things  appear  united  in  a  pair,  but  for  the  present 
only  in  such  a  way  that  I  can  assert  the  actual  similarity,  the 
approximate  likeness,  the  dative  is  used." 

The  pair  conception  expressed  by  the  genitive  was  the  original 
one,  Haase  thinks;  afterward,  with  a  different  meaning,  appeared 
the  dative,  which  later  extended  its  sphere.  But  if  the  question 
is  under  what  circumstances,  after  the  difference  between  the 
genitive  and  the  dative  developed,  each  case  may  stand,  "  it  is 
clear,"  says  Haase,  "  that  with  the  genitive  the  similarity  must 
be  an  evident,  actual  one  which  binds  the  two  subjects  together 
in  the  relation  of  original  and  copy  (^Urbildund  Ahbihl);  with 
the  dative  this  is  not  necessary;  here  the  similarity  may  be 
partial,  limited  to  a  single  point,  conditional,  problematic, 
approximate.  At  any  rate  it  is  a  similarity  which  just  at  the 
moment  is  asserted  or  perceived  as  a  fact,  and  from  which  the 
conclusion  is  not  drawn  that  the  two  similar  objects  are  related 
as  a  pair;  consequently,  it  is  a  more  general  and  comprehensive 
method  of  expression." 

The  fundamental  ground  of  Haase's  rule  with  some  examples 
of  its  application  are  given  in  another  passage,  which  it  may  be 
well  to  quote.^  "  The  explanation  founded  on  the  nature  of  the 
cases  and  the  only  correct  one  seems  to  me  to  be  that  one  which 
I  have  already  applied  to propriusJ"^  To  begin  with,  if  the  geni- 
tive is  thought  of  alone,  for  example,  h(ymo  est  dei,  to  a  correct 
feeling  for  language  it  is  undeniable  that  a  real  belonging,  an 
actual  dependence,  of  one  object  upon  the  other  is  expressed, 

WNote  to  Reisig  3-617. 

»The  remarks  on  propHua  arc  found  In  note  529  to  Reisig. 


r 


Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds     15 

which,  if  not  more  definitely  determined,  can,  most  naturally,  at 
least  in  this  case,  convey  the  idea  of  possession,  while,  in  other 
relations  of  the  objects,  other  ideas  can  be  conveyed.  If  now  that 
belonging  and  dependence  is  more  definitely  determined  by  the 
idea  of  similarity,'"  from  the  two  taken  together  no  other  relation 
can  arise  than  that  of  copy  to  original,  or  vice  versa ;  one  object, 
as  it  were,  is  repeated  in  another,  and  the  comparison  of  the  two 
rests  upon  inner  necessity.  Ho7no  est  dei  similis  consequently 
means  *man  is  the  image  of  God.' " 

The  kind  of  objects  compared  when  the  relation  of  model  and 
copy  may  be  aflBrmed,  Haase  defines  as  follows:"  "If  it  is  a 
question  as  regards  the  kind  of  similarity,  it  is  understood,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  that  the  copy  must  really  be  of  the  same  kind 
as  the  original.  This  similarity  is  more  likely  to  be  that  of 
character.  But  it  is  not  at  all  necessary  that  the  similarity 
should  be  incorporeal ;  one  object  of  sense  may  be  the  image  of 
another,  if  one  repeats  the  nature  of  the  other.  Objects  of  dif- 
ferent kinds  cannot  be  compared  in  this  way,  for  in  this  case  one 
is  not  repeated  in  the  other,  but  only  in  this  or  that  respect  may 
similarity  be  affirmed."  Still  when  the  language  is  figurative 
the  model  and  copy  relation  may,  he  says,  be  affirmed  of  objects 
that  are  unlike,  as  in  Cicero  dialectics  is  called  the  likeness  of 

the  fist." 

As  regards  the  extent  of  the  likeness  when  the  genitive  is  used, 
Haase  notes  that  it  should  exist  not  only  in  certain  specified  re- 
pects,  but  should  characterize  throughout  the  objects  compared. 
Still  in  comparison  of  character  the  model  and  copy  relation  may 
be  affirmed  of  partial  likeness.*"  For  example,  lascivia  socor- 
diaque  gladiatorum  magis  quam  ducum  similes.**' 

To  summarize :  According  to  this  theory  the  genitive  is  used 
mostly  of  objects  of  the  same  kind,  but  may  be  used  of  objects 
of  different  kinds;  it  is  used  mostly  of  inner  likeness,  but  may 
be  used  of  outer  likeness ;  it  is  used  mostly  of  complete  likeness, 
but  may  be  used  of  partial  likeness.  Moreover,  the  dative  is 
arbitrary  **  and  at  the  will  of  the  author  invades  the  sphere  of 

*o««The  adjective  merely  supplies  the  ground,"  etc.     See  first  quotation 
from  Haase,  p.  13  of  this  paper. 
♦»  Note  to  Reisig  3-618. 
"Cic.   De  Fin.  2-17.     The  passage  \fill  be  cited  in  the  discussion  of 

Haase's  theory. 
*'  Note  to  Reisig  3-619.       *<  Tac.  Hist.  3-76.       ^^Note  to  Reisig  3-619. 


16     Case  Coxstkuctioxs  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds 

the  genitive  except  in  a  very  limited  range.**  Still  further,  the 
distinction  thus  limited,  holds  mainly  for  Cicero  only,  for  in 
earlier  Latin  the  genitive  prevails  and  in  later  Latin  the  dative  is 
dominant/'  With  all  these  limitations  the  question  naturally 
arises  whether  the  distinction  is  worth  making. 

As  if  in  anticipation  of  such  a  question,  Haase  concedes  that 
the  distinction  he  draws  is  not  so  readily  understood  as  that  of 
the  old  grammarians  or  of  Madvig.  But  in  its  favor  he  mentions 
the  fact  that  for  certain  phenomena  it  offers  a  ready  explanation. 

For  instance, 

(1).  It  explains  the  inf requency  of  the  genitive  of  outer  like- 
ness, since  here  the  similarity  must  rarely  be  of  such  a  character 
as  to  justify  the  conception  of  a  pair.  On  the  contrary,  since 
inner  likeness  is  not  apparent  to  the  eye,  but  depends  upon  the 
judgment,  it  is  much  easier  to  consider  two  persons  as  forming  a 
pair,  and  this,  in  connection  with  the  fact  that  inner  likenesses 
are  much  more  frequently  spoken  of  in  literature,*"  accounts  for 
the  more  frequent  use  of  the  genitive  in  such  comparisons. 

The  facts  in  Cicero  are  as  follows :  (1).  There  is  no  infre- 
quency,  but  a  marked  frequency,  of  the  genitive,  as  compared  with 
the  dative,  in  the  expression  of  outer  likeness.  (2).  The  genitive, 
as  compared  with  the  dative,  is  relatively  more  frequent  in  the 
expression  not  of  inner,  but  of  outer,  likeness.  Excluding  the 
genitive  of  the  personal  pronoun  and  verum  and  eliminating  all 
doubtful  cases,  the  figures  are:  *' 


Genitive 
Dative. . 


Onter        Inner 

likeness,  likeness. 

29  78 

11  89 


1181 


Ratio  of  gen.  to  dat.  in  expression  of  outer  likeness  -^29 

808 
Ratio  of  gen.  to  dat.  in  expression  of  inner  likeness  -^^ 

Haase's  theory,  then,  explains  a  fact  that  does  not  exist. 

(2).  It  explains  the  combination  veri  simile,  since  the  pro- 
bable is  the  copy  of  the  true.  This  hardly  explains.  For  in  say- 
ing that  the  probable  is  the  copy  of  the  true  Haase  seems  to  com- 

4«  Vorl.  2-137.  The  limitation  is  that  the  genitive  of  the  personal  pro- 
noun is  said  always  to  be  used.  (Note  to  Reisig  3-619.  Cf.  Charisius  K.  1- 
108.)    But  even  here  the  dative  is  found.     Cic.  De  Or.  3-47.     Cf.  p.  41. 

41  Haase,  Vorl.  2-136.  *«  Haase,  Vorl.  2-188. 

*»Cf.  table  on  p.  11  of  this  paper. 


f 


Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds     17 

pare  the  combination  veri  simile  with  verum,  and  to  leave  out  of 
consideration  veri  in  veri  simile,  which  is  the  only  thing  he  is 
seeking  to  explain.  Besides  the  model  and  copy  relation  of 
Haase  is  scarcely  in  harmony  with  the  distinction  drawn  between 
verum  and  veri  simile,  Cic.  De  In  v.  1-82 :  si  res  aut  vera  aut  veri 
similis  permittet.  Acad.  2-66 :  Qui  enim  possum  non  cupere  verum 
invenire,  quum  gaudeam,  si  simile  veri  quid  invenerim  ?  Nor  is  his 
explanation  in  better  accord  with  Acad.  2-49 :  Si  tale  visum  ob- 
jectum  est  a  deo  dormienti,  ut  probabile  sit,  cur  non  etiam  ut 
valde  veri  simile?  cur  deinde  non  ut  difficiliter  a  vero  internos- 
catur,  deinde  ut  ne  internoscatur  quidem?  postremo  ut  nihil  in- 
ter hoc  et  illud  intersit  ?  Might  it  not  also  be  asked  why,  on 
Haase's  grounds,  the  comparative  and  superlative  do  not  show  in 
Cicero  more  attachment  for  veri  than  the  positive  ? 

(3).  It  explains  the  constant  ^  use  of  the  genitive  of  the  per- 
sonal pronoun  with  similis,  for  each  one  is  his  own  image.^^  Each 
one  is  his  own  image,  to  be  sure,  but  the  genitive  of  the  personal 
pronoun  occurs  when  one  person '^^  or  even  thing ^  is  compared 

with  another. 

This,  then,  is  Haase's  theory,  with  its  grounds,  range  of  appli- 
cation,  and  claims,  as  stated  by  himself.  Before  proceeding  to 
compare  his  theory  with  the  facts  of  the  language,  three  general 
observations  may  be  made  with  reference  to  it. 

(1)  It  would  seem  strange  that  in  the  early  period  the  Latins  in 
u%\xig  similis  should  have  had  only  the  conception  of  two  objects 
as  a  pair,^  that  only  in  a  later  period  they  should  have  developed 
the  idea  of  general  similarity  and  found  an  expression  for  it  in 
similis  and  the  dative,  and  that  in  still  later  times  they  should 
have  allowed  the  construction  with  the  dative  to  obliterate  the 
very  distinction  it  was  intended  to  preserve.  However  that  may 
be,  it  is  certain  that,  without  the  device  of  the  double  case  con- 
struction, they  had  the  means  at  hand,  in  the  degrees  of  com- 
parison, for  the  adequate  expression  of  both  these  ideas,  and  it  is 
worthy  of  remark  that  Varro^  testifies  that  the  exact  conception 
which  Haase  contends  is  expressed  by  similis  and  the  genitive  is 
given  by  similis  in  the  superlative.  "  Itaque  qui  plura  habent 
eadem,  dicuntur  similiores:  qui  proxume  accedunt  ad  id,  ut 
omnia  habeant  eadem,  vocantur  gemini,  simillimi." 

w  Not  absolutely  constant  even  for  Cicero.  Cf .  De  Or.  3-47. 
»>  Note  to  Reisig  3-620.  "  Cic.  Lael.  82. 

ML.  L.  10-4. 


»»Cic.  Tusc.  1-43. 


M  Haase,  Vorl.  2-136. 


18     Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds 

(2)  Varro  may  be  supposed  to  be  a  competent  witness  as  to 
the  force  and  meaning  of  the  word  similis,  and  in  L.  L.  10-3,  4,  a 
passage  in  which  genitive  and  dative  alternate  in  a  significant 
way,  in  striking  contrast  with  Haase's  fine  distinction,  he  gives 
just  such  force  and  meaning  to  similis  as  one  would  naturally 
ascribe  to  it.    "  Simile  est,  quod  res  plerasque  habere  videtur  eas- 
dem,  quas  illud  quoius  quid  simile.  Dissimile  est,  quod  videtur  esse 
contrarium  huius  ....  Sic  dicitur  similis  homo  homini,  equos 
equo,  et  dissimilis  homo  equo  .  .  .  .  Eo  porro  similiores  sunt, 
qui  facie  quoque  paene  eadem,  habitu  corporis  et  filo.    Itaque 
qui  plura  habent  eadem,  dicuntur  similiores:  qui  proxumeacce- 
dunt  ad  id,  ut  omnia  habeant  eadem,  vocantur  gemini,  simillimi." 
In  this  quotation  from  Varro  attention  is  specially  called  to  three 
things,    (a)  He  uses  the  genitive  with  similis  where  the  likeness 
is    slight,    (b)  he  changes  from  genitive  to  dative  though  the 
thought  allows  no  difference  in  meaning,  (c)  as  is  most  worthy 
of  note,  he  uses  the  genitive  in  the  general  comparison  (ein  Satz 
allgemeiner  Gultigkeit),  which  is  just  what  Haase  says  should 
not  be  done,**  and  the  dative  in  the  particular  ones. 

(3)  The  distinction  is  highly  subjective.    All  that  it  is  possi- 
ble to  say  in  the  great  majority  of  cases  is,  that  here  the  concep- 
tion of  model  and  copy  might  have  been  in  the  author's  mind,  not 
that  it  certainly  was  there.    This  subjective  character  of  the 
distinction  finds  illustration  in  the  confusing  use  of  terms  by 
those  who  adhere  to  it.    For  instance,  with  the  dative,  accord- 
ing to  Haase  (2-137),  the  method  of  expression  is  more  general 
and    comprehensive  (die  Ausdrucksweise  ist  allgemeiner  und 
umfassender),  while,  according  to  Seyffert  (Cic.  Lael.  p.  488), 
with  the  genitive  one  object  is  similar  to  the  other  in  a  general 
and  comprehensive  way  (Was  alicuiue  simile  ist,  ist  dieses  in 
allgemeiner  und  umfassender  Bezeichnung),  whereas,  according 
to  Krebs  s.  ^milis,  Seyffert  means  that  with  the  genitive  the 
similarity  itself  is  general  and  comprehensive.     {Similis  mit 
Genitiv  steht  da,  wo  die  Aehnlichkeit  eine  allgemeine  und  umfas- 
sende  ist)."    This  is  less  clear  than  sunlight. 
We  come  now  to  compare  Haase's  theory  with  the  facts  of  the 

language. 

5«Note  to  Reisig  3-620,  where  Haase  quotes  Cic.  Nat.  Deo.  1-90,  a  paa- 
sage  in  which  there  is  again  interchange  of  cases,  but  here  the  dative  is 
used  in  the  general  comparison,  the  genitive  in  the  particular  one. 

37  Cf.  Gildersleeve,  Lat.  Gram.  359,  note  4. 


t 


Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds     19 

(I).  In  doing  so  we  first  present  instances  of  simple  interchange 
between  genitive  and  dative  without  apparent  reason  for  the 
variation.    A  good  example  is  found  in  Lucr.  4-1208. 

Et  commiscendo  quom  semine  forte  virili 
femina  vim  vicit  subita  vi  corripuitque 
tum  similis  matrum  materno  semine  fiunt 
ut  patribus  patrio. 

A  similar  shift  is  found  in  Cic.  Nat.  Deo.  2-149.  Itaque  plec- 
tri  similem  linguam  nostri  solent  dicere,  chordarum  dentep,  nares 
cornibus  iis,  qui  ad  nervos  resonant  in  cantibus.  In  this  case 
Kiihner**  and  Haase^  describe  the  change  as  arbitrary  (willkiir- 
lich),  but  Haase"  regards  the  last  comparison  as  being  less  simple 
and  clear,  as  the  relative  clause  shows,  and  accounts  for  the  geni- 
tive in  this  way.  This  is  hardly  an  adequate  explanation,  as  Cic. 
De  Or.  2-265  shows,  (dicebat)  nostros  homines  similes  esse 
Syrorum  venalium:  ut  quisque  optime  Graece  sciret,  ita  esse 
nequissimum.  For  here  the  necessary  explanatory  clause  is 
joined  to  the  genitive."  On  the  supposition  that  there  is  a  dif- 
ference in  conception  between  the  genitive  and  the  dative  the 
shift  in  case  in  these  passages  is  not  justified.     Cf.  Varro  as  above. 

(II).  While  an  arbitrary  shift  might  have  taken  place  in  the 
preceding  passages,  some  examples  may  now  be  cited  in  which 
the  argument  requires  that  the  meaning  should  not  shift,  and  yet 
both  genitive  and  dative  are  used.  Cic.  Nat.  Deo.  1-90 :  Nee 
vero  intelligo,  cur  maluerit  Epicurus  deos  hominum  similes 
dicere  quam  homines  deorum.  Quaeres  quid  intersit.  Si  enim 
hoc  illi  simile  sit,  esse  illud  huic.  Here  Haase  ^^  justifies  the 
dative  in  the  last  sentence  on  the  ground  that  only  by  its  use 
does  the  statement  secure  universal  application,  and  Kiihner" 
finds  that  in  this  place  the  genitive  is  used  of  likeness  in  a  more 
definite  way,  while  the  dative  indicates  likeness  in  quite  a  general 
manner.  With  this  example  and  the  explanations  given  of  the 
variations  by  Haase  and  Kiihner  it  is  interesting  to  compare  the 
following  statement  in  Varro,  L.  L.  10-4:  Minimum  ex  duobus 
constat  omne  simile,  item  dissimile,  quod  nihil  potest  esse  simile, 
quin  alicuias  sit  simile,  item  nihil  dicitur  dissimile,  quin  adda- 
tur,  quoius  sit  dissimile.  Sic  dicitur  similis  homo  homini.  For 
here  the  genitive  is  used  in  the  more  general  statements  and  the 


»  2-828. 

wVorl.  2-189. 

«  Note  to  Reisig  8-620. 


MNote  to  Reisig  3-619. 
•>  For  a  similar  example  see  Cic.  De  Off.  1-89. 

«3  2-328. 


20     Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds 

dative  in  the  particular  one,  which  is  exactly  the  reverse  of  the 
usage  for  which  Haase  found  an  easy  explanation  in  the  quotation 

from  Cicero.** 

Another  example  is  found  in  Cicero,  De  Leg.  1-29 :  Nihil 
est  enim  unum  uni  tam  simile,  tarn  par  quam  omnes  inter  nos- 
met  ipsos  sumus.  Quod  si  depravatio  consuetudinum,  si  opinio- 
num  vanitas  non  imbecillitatem  animorum  torqueret  et  iiecteret 
quocumque  coepisset,  sui  nemo  ipse  tam  similis  esset  quam  omnes 
sunt  omnium.  It  is  to  be  noted,  too,  that  what  Cicero  here 
speaks  of  as  the  highest  likeness  is  expressed  by  the  dative.  Cic 
Tusc.  3-23  may  also  be  cited.  Aegris  enim  corporibus  simillima 
animi  est  aegritudo;  at  non  similis  aegrotationis  est  libido,  non 
immoderata  laetitia,  quae  est  voluptas  animi  elata  et  gestiens. 
Ipse  etiam  metus  non  est  morbi  admodum  similis. 

In  Cic.  Tusc.  1-92  speaking  of  death  it  is  said :  Quam  qui 
leviorem  faciunt,  somni  simillimam  volunt  esse.  But  id.  1-97  the 
language  is :  Quam  ob  rem,  sive  sensus  extinguitur  morsque  ei 
somno  similis  est,  qui  non  numquam  etiam  sine  visis  somniorum 
placatissimam  quietem  aflfert,  di  boni,  quid  lucri  est  emori.  The 
superlative,  of  course,  does  not  account  for  the  genitive  in  the 
first  sentence,  for  cf.  Cic.  Verr.  2-2-99 :  Itaque  fecit,  ut  exitus 
principio  simillimus  reperiretur.** 

Under  this  head  of  variation  in  case  where  the  argument  re- 
quires that  there  be  no  difference  in  meaning  one  other  example 
may  be  given,  Cic.  Acad.  2-50 :  Quo  modo  autem  sumis  ut,  si 
quid  cui  simile  esse  possit,  sequatur  ut  etiam  difficiliter  inter- 
nosci  possit?  deinde,  ut  ne  internosci  quidem?  postremo,  ut 
eadem  sint  ?  .  .  .  Et  quidem  honestis  similia  sunt  quaedam  non 
honesta  et  bonis  non  bona  et  artificiosis  minime  artificiosa.  Here 
the  dative  is  found  throughout,  but  in  Acad.  2-54,  where  exactly 
the  same  subject  is  under  discussion,  the  genitive  occurs.  Sed 
si  satis  est  ad  tollendamcognitionem  similia  esse  multamultorum, 
cur  eo  non  estis  contenti,  praesertim  concedentibus  nobis  ?«» 

(III).  Passing  now  from  the  cases  in  which  the  genitive  and 
dative  interchange  in  an  arbitrary  way  and  from  those  that  allow 
no  shift  in  meaning  but  admit  at  the  same  time  the  shift  in  con- 
Btruction,  we  take  up  those  examples  of  similis  with  the  genitive 

•*  Cf.  note  on  page  18  of  this  paper. 

•sCf.  also  Cic.  Dc.  Or.  8-47,  mihl  .  .  .  simillimum. 

••Cf.  Cic.  Nat.  Deo.  2-41.     The  expression  varies,  the  thought  does  not. 


1 


Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds     21 

in  which  the  EhenUld  idea  of  Haase  is  (1)  denied  and  (2)  those 
in  which  it  is  practically  impossible. 

(1)  Few  examples  of  the  first  kind  could  be  expected,  but 
Cic.   Or.  220  seems  to  present  one:     Multum  interest  utrum 
numerosa  sit,  id  est,  similis  numerorum,  an  plane  e  numeris  con- 
stetoratio;  alterum  si  fit,  intolerabile  vitium  est,  alterum  nisi 
fit,  dissipata  et  inculta  et  fluens  est  oratio.    To  say  nothing  of 
the  meaning  of  numerosa,  which  similis  numerorum  explains,  and 
of  the  sharp  contrast  between  similis  numerorum  and  plane  e 
numeris  constet  oratio,  it  is  certain  that  Cicero  did  not  mean  to 
commend  a  style  of  oratory  so  nearly  resembling  meter  as  to  make 
it  necessary  that  the  two  should  be  conceived  of  as  model  and  copy. 
Another  example  of  the  same  kind,  though,  perhaps,  not  quite 
so  clear,  is  found  in  Cic.  Tusc.  1-81 :    Quaererem  ex  eo,  cuius 
Buorum   similis  fuisset  Africani  fratris  nepos,  facie  vel  patris, 
vita  omnium  perditorum  ita  similis,  ut  esset  facile  deterrimus. 
To  disregard  the  difficulty  involved  in  being  the  Ebenhild  of 
all  bad  men,  since  they  must  have  been  numerous  and  of  various 
kinds,  a  difference  is  given  in  deterrimus  which  excludes  the 
strict  Ebenhild  idea. 

(2)  Some  passages  may  now  be  cited  in  which  the  EhenUld 
idea  is  practically  impossible. 

(a)  The  comparison  is  between  persons  and  things,  as  in  Cic. 
De  Off.  1-89 :  Ilia  vero  omnibus  in  rebus  repudianda  est  optan- 
dumque,  ut  ii,  qui  praesunt  rei  publicae,  legum  similes  sint,  quae 
ad  puniendum  non  iracundia,  sed  aequitate  ducuntur.  Plautus 
shows  several  examples. 

(b)  Unlike  things  are  compared,  as  in  De  Fin.  4-28 :  Cuius- 
cumque  enim  modi  animal  constitueris,  necesse  est,  etiamsi  id 
sine  corpore  sit,  ut  fingimus  tamen  esse  in  animo  quaedam  simi- 
lia eorum,  quae  sunt  in  corpore.  Nat.  Deo.  2-29 :  omnem  enim 
naturam  necesse  est  .  .  .  habere  aliquem  in  se  principatum,  ut 
in  homine  mentem,  in  belua  quiddam  simile  mentis.  Cicero  can 
hardly  intend  to  affirm  that  there  is  in  the  brute  the  EhenUld  of 
the  human  intellect.  A  similar  example  is  found  in  De  Fin.  5- 
38:  Sunt  autem  bestiae  quaedam,  in  quibus  inest  aliquid  simile 
virtutis.*' 

(c)  Here  too  seem  to  belong  such  indefinite  expressions  as 
portenti,  monstri,  ostenti,  prodigii  simile,  never  the  dative  in  early 
Latin  or  in  Cicero.    Considering  the  necessarily  indefinite  nature 

•'Cf.  Cic.  Ad.  Fam.  9-16-8. 


22     Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds 

of  the  monstrum,  etc.  and  the  range  of  subjects,  trifling  or  serious, 
of  which  monstri  simile,  etc.  is  said,  the  conditions  are  not  met 
for  the  Ehenbild  conception  of  Haase.  Cf.  pro  monstro  .  .  .  est, 
PL  Asin.  289,  and  portento  similis,  Livy  10-47-6. 

In  comparisons  of  unlike  persons  and  things  Haase  says  he 
finds  the  dative  to  be  regularly  used  though  the  genitive  is  found 
when  the  comparison  is  a  figurative  one.    The  explanation  of 
the  genitive  in  the  examples  given  above  (a  and  b)  in  which 
unlike  things  are  compared  is  not  found  in  the  figurative  lan- 
guage, for  to  find  here  figures  available  as  explanations  is  to  press 
too  far  the  mere  presence  of  a  word  of  likeness.    Moreover,  the  pas- 
sage in  which  Haase  explains  the  genitive  by  the  figure,  when 
compared  with  a  similar  place,  may  serve  to  show  that  the  expla- 
nation is  hardly  adequate.    The  genitive  that  he  explains  by  the 
figure  is  found  in  De  Fin.  2-17:  Rhetoricam  palmae,  dialecticam 
pugni  similem  esse  dicebat.    The  passage  to  be  compared  with 
this  occurs  in  Or.  113:  Cum  compresserat  digitos  pugnumque 
fecerat,  dialecticam  aiebat  eiusmodi  esse;  cum  autem  diduxerat 
et  manum  dilataverat,  palmae  illius  similem  eloquentiam  esse 
dicebat.    Unlike  things  are  compared  here,  but  the  parallelism, 
dialecticam  pugni  similem  esse  and  dialecticam  eiusmodi  esse  re- 
duces the  figure  to  a  point  so  low  that  it  can  scarcely  be  evoked 
as  an  explanation. 

(d)  One  object  is  compared  with  more  than  one.  Haase  recog- 
nizes the  difficulty  involved  in  this  kind  of  comparison  from  his 
own  point  of  view,  when  he  says  that  veri  simile  is  natural,  but 
veris  similia,  as  sometimes  found,  is  readily  explained,  because  in 
cases  of  undetermined  plurality  the  idea  of  a  pair  is  not  to  be  ex- 
pected. But  in  other  cases  as  well,  such  as  the  following,  the 
idea  of  a  pair  is  hardly  to  be  found.  De  Fin.  4-32 :  Nemo  enim 
est,  qui  aliter  dixerit,  quin  omnium  naturarum  simile  esset  id, 
ad  quod  omnia  referrentur.  Nat.  Deo.  2-36:  Neque  enim,  si 
stirpium  similis  (natura)  sit  aut  etiam  bestiarum,  optima  putanda 
sit  potius  quam  deterrima.  Tusc.  2-36:  Illi  autem  voluerunt 
nihil  horum  simile  esse 

apnd  Lacaenas  virgines 
qnibus  magis  palaestra,  Eurotas,  sol,  pulvis,  labor, 
militia  studio  est,  quam  fertilitas  barbara. 

(IV).  Having  shown  how  the  dative  interchanges  with  the 
genitive  not  only  where  a  slight  change  in  meaning  would  be 
of  no  great  consequence,  but  also  where  the  argument  does  not 


T 


Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds     23 

admit  difference  of  meaning,  and  having  noted  that  the  genitive  is 
found  where  the  Ebenhild  idea  is  either  denied  or  practically 
impossible,  attention  is  called  to  an  example  of  the  dative  where, 
according  to  Haase,  the  genitive  certainly  ought  to  stand.  The 
pair  exists  and  the  likeness  is  so  striking «« that  the  plot  of  one 
of  the  plays  of  Plautus  rests  upon  it.  Not  even  the  wife  with 
the  keen  eye  of  suspicion  can  distinguish  her  Menaechmus  from 
his  brother.  The  sentence  is  taken  from  Varro  L.  L.  10-38: 
Nam  ut  in  geminis  quom  similem  dicimus  esse  Menaechmum 
Menaechmo,  de  uno  dicimus. 

In  concluding  one  can  hardly  forbear  introducing  a  quotation 
from  Quintilian,  5-11-30:  Scio  quosdam  inani  diligentia  per 
minutissimas  ista  partes  secuisse,  et  esse  aliquid  minus  simile, 
ut  simia  homini  et  marmora  def ormata  prima  manu,  aliquid  plus, 
ut  illud,  Non  ovum  tam  simile  ovo. 

Quintilian,  to  be  sure,  was  not  thinking  of  modern  grammarians, 
but  he  evidently  knew  nothing  of  the  distinction  Haase  makes. 
If  he  had,  he  would  have  used  the  dative  in  the  first  place  and 
the  genitive  in  the  second,  for  in  that  the  highest  degree  of  like- 
ness is  expressed. 

Haase's  theory,  then,  discounted  largely  in  practical  value 
by  the  restrictions  he  places  upon  it,  open  to  objection  in 
view  of  a  character  highly  subjective  and  a  range  of  ap- 
plication limited  mainly  to  Cicero,  and  out  of  accord,  further- 
more, with  the  general  facts  of  the  language,  cannot  be  said  to  be 
satisfactory,  especially  since  the  phenomena  it  claims  to  explain 
either  vanish  upon  examination  or  are  not  adequately  explained. 
Hence  the  fact  that  it  is  not  accepted  by  such  authorities  as 
Drager**  and  Krebs'«  was  to  be  expected.  So  Bennett  declares: 
"  In" point  of  meaning  absolutely  no  distinction  between  the  two 
(cases)  can  be  discovered."  " 

In  reading  Haase's  discussion  of  the  subject  it  is  readily  noticed 
how  carefully  he  refrains  from  calling  similis  with  the  genitive 
a  substantive.  Indeed,  in  one  place,"  he  apparently  rejects  this 
view,  as  Madvig"  and  Wilkins'*  do  by  implication,  and  elsewhere'* 
he  dismisses  the  suggestion  as  useless  and  calls  similis  so  used  an 
adjective,  as  does  also  Landgraf.  It  is  equally  easy,  however,  to 
notice  that,  while  Haase  and  others  who  follow  him  avoid  calling 


wCf.  Men.  1088-1090.  69i«445. 

"  The  teaching  of  Latin  and  Greek,  p.  139. 
"Clc.  De  Fin.  5-12.  ''«Cic.  De  Or.  3-47. 


'0  Antibarbarns  2-525. 
78  Note  to  Reisig  3-618. 
75  Vorl.  2-134. 


24     Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds 

similis  with  the  genitive  a  substantive,  they  translate  it  as  such 
without  reserve.'®  Others  still  not  only  use  the  substantive 
translation,  Bild,  AUild,  Ehenbild,  image,  counterparty  like, 
likenessy  but  state  with  more  or  less  caution  that  similis  with  the 
genitive  is  a  substantive.  For  instance,  Kuhner,"  who  evidently 
has  Haase's  distinction  in  mind,  speaking  with  some  reserve,  says 
of  adjectives  of  similarity  and  dissimilarity  and  their  opposites; 
"  The  genitive  is  used  especially  when  the  adjective  idea  approaches 
the  substantive  idea."  But  later  he  remarks  without  qualifica- 
tion : ''  ''Similia  with  the  genitive  is  used  by  Cicero  and  the  older 
authors,  when  it  assumes  the  substantive  idea  of  copy,  image:' 

This  brings  us  to  the  view,  which,  without  regard  to  Haase's 
fine  distinction,  accounts  for  the  two  constructions  with  similis 
by  assigning  it  to  a  group  of  words  which  are  used  both  as  sub- 
stantives with  the  genitive  and  as  adjectives  with  the  dative. 
Thus  Drager  ^  says  that  many  adjectives  become  substantives  and 
then  are  used  with  the  genitive  or  with  a  personal  pronoun. 
Such  adjectives  denote  friendship,  relationship,  association,  and 
their  opposites.  The  words  aequalis,  affiniSy  amicusy  cognatusy 
contrarms,  and  joar  are  members  of  the  group,  and  among  them 
similis  is  thus  placed  by  Gildersleeve:  "^  "  similiSy  like  (*  we  ne'er 
shall  look  upon  his  like  again')."  This  view  of  the  double  con- 
struction must,  therefore,  be  considered. 

The  well-known  substantivizing  of  adjectives  needs  no  dis- 
cussion here,  the  double  use  and  corresponding  construction  of 
the  words  of  the  group  just  referred  to  are  not  a  matter  of  dis- 
pute, nor  need  it  be  denied  that  similis  with  the  genitive  is  some- 
times a  substantive.    The  question  at  issue  is  whether  or  not 
similis  with  the  genitive  is  always  a  substantive.    The  considera- 
tion of  this  question  may  begin  with  the  citation  of  some  of  the 
better  examples  of  similis  as  a  substantive  without  a  case.    The 
instances  are  far  less  common  than  might  be  supposed.    A  good 
example  is  found  in  Cic.  Verr.  2-3-155 :  Volo,  mi  frater,  frater- 
culo  tuo  credas.  Consorti  quidem  in  lucris  atque  (in)  furtis,  gemi- 
no  et  simillimo  nequitia,  improbitate,  audacia.    The  same  use  is 
found  in  Cic.  Verr.  2-3-162:  Quid  isto  fore  festivius  arbitramur, 
si  est  tuus  natura  filius,  consuetudine  discipulus,  voluntate  simi- 
lis.   A  notable  example  occurs  in  Juv.  2-6 :  Si  quis  Aristotelen 
similem  vel  Pittacon  emit.    The  neuter  plural  of  similis  without 

7«  Vorl.  2-135.     Cf.  Grammars  of  Holzweistig,  Menge,  Bergcr,  and  Lane. 
"2-327.  "Jw  2-328.  79  1-444.  »  359,  Rem.  1. 


11 


i 


Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds     25 

a  case  is  not  so  common  as  might  have  been  expected.  As  an 
example  Cic.  Nat.  Deo.  1-105  may  be  cited :  ®^  Neque  deficiat 
umquam  ex  infinitis  corporibus  similium  accessio.  There  are, 
however,  many  examples  in  Quintilian.  The  neuter  singular 
without  a  case  has  not  been  observed  as  a  substantive  except  in 
the  well-known  meaning,  likeness,  simile,  comparison,  parallel 
case.  A  good  example  is  found  in  Plautus,  Amph.  446 :  Nil  hoc 
similist  similius.  Another  of  many  similar  examples  occurs  in 
Cicero,  De  Fin.  3-46 :  Utunturque  simili.®'  This  neuter  form, 
petrified  as  a  substantive  with  a  distinct  meaning,  would  seem  to 
indicate  a  strongly  marked  tendency  in  the  adjective  similis  to 
become  a  substantive. 

We  pass  now  to  some  instances  of  similis  with  the  genitive 
used  as  a  substantive.  Beginning  with  the  substantive  similis 
used  with  the  genitive  of  the  personal  pronoun,  Plautus,  Persa 
698  furnishes  the  earliest  example  noted : 

Videor  vidisse  hie  forma  persimilem  tuL 

Other  examples  are,  Cic.  Ad.  Att.  8-9-2 :  Quanto  autem  fero- 
cius  ille  causae  suae  confidet,  cum  vos,  cum  vestri  similes  .  .  . 
gratulantes  viderit  ?  Ad.  Fam.  14-7-2  shows  this  construction 
with  a  preposition  :  £t  tamen  eiusmodi  spero  negotia  esse,  ut  et 
vos  istic  commodissime  sperem  esse  et  me  aliquando  cum  simili- 
bus  nostri  rem  publicam  defensuros:  Cf.  Ad.  Att.  1-16-3:  Pauci 
tamen  boni  inerant  .  .  .  qui  maesti  inter  sui  dissimiles  et  mae- 
rentes  sedebant.  Cf.  also  Cic.  Phil.  10-3 :  Cur  semper  tui  dis- 
similes defendis?® 

Some  examples  of  the  substantive  similis  with  the  genitive  of 
other  pronouns  referring  to  persons  may  also  be  given,  and  here 
again  Plautus  heads  the  list.    Most.  128 : 

Nituntur,  nt  alii  aibi  esse  illornm  similis  expetant. 

Other  instances  are  Cic.  Cluent.  158 :  Sed  hoc  polliceor  omni- 
bus .  .  .  me  .  .  .  vel  his  judicibus  vel  horumsimilibusfacillime 
probaturum.  De  Fin.  4-49 :  Quis  igitur  tibi  istud  dabit  praeter 
Pyrrhonem,  Aristonem  eorumve  similes  ? 

Passing  to  the  genitive  of  pronouns  not  referring  to  persons 
with  the  substantive  similiSy  Cic.  Ad.  Fam.  2-16-2  shows  the 
relative :  Nosti  enim  non  modo  stomachi  mei,  cuius  tu  similem 
quondam  habebas,  sed  etiam  oculorum  .  .  .  fastidium.  And  Cic. 
De  Or.  3-208  shows  the  substantive  similis  in  the  neuter  plural 

8»Cf.  Verr.  2-^-68.  ^Cf.  De  Fin.  3-54. 

"Cf.  Ad.  Fam.  7-1-4,  Ad.  Att.  9-11-4,  Verr.  2-3-148,  Pliil.  3-18. 


f         ^ 


26     Case  Constructions  of  Simius  and  its  Compounds 

with  the  genitive  of  a  pronoun :  Haec  enim  sunt  fere  atque  horum 
similia,  vel  plura  etiam  esse  posaant,  quae  .  .  .  orationem  .  .  . 

''^Tre  lSt*of  examples  may  close  with  one  in  which  the  sub- 
stantiye  simiKs  is  used  with  the  genitive  of  a  noun  Ojc-  Q°;«  • 
Rose.  55:  Siniillima  enim  et  maxime  gemma  societas  hereditatis 

est     Of.  Verr.  2-3-162.  ,   ^^  , 

The  foregoing,  as  already  said,  are  some  of  the  better  examples 
of  the  substontive  use  of  simUis  both  without  a  case  and  with 
the  genitive.  The  words  « better  examples '  are  used  advisedly, 
for  in  a  matter  so  subjective  what  seems  a  very  clear  substantive 
use  to  one  may  appear  to  another  in  a  very  diflferent  H^-f^^ 
as  a  matter  of  fact  the  dative  is  found  with  tmilts  in  examples  in 
which  its  substantive  use  seems  otherwise  as  distinct  as  in  the 
cases  just  cited  for  its  substantive  use  with  the  genitive.  Com- 
pare  e.  g.  Cic.  Tusc.  5-97:  Atque  his  similia  ad  victum  etiam 

transferuntur.*  ,         _,.  *     v,^ 

Most  of  the  examples  are  naturally  taken  from  Cicero,  for  he 
nsed  the  substantive  siinilis  with  the  genitive  much  more  than 
others.    Even  in  Cicero,  however,  the  examples  are  by  no  means 
80  numerous  as  might  be  expected.    Exclusive  of  ven  swnU 
which  is  omitted  because  of  its  fixed  character,  simihs  with  the 
genitive  occurs  about  240  times  in  Cicero.    Of  these  240  cases  29 
have  been  observed  in  which  the  substantive  use  of  nmilis  seems 
clear  «•    In  these  twenty-nine  examples  of  the  genitive  the  per- 
sonal  pronoun  occurs  twenty  times,  and  of  these  twenty  occur- 
rences  nine  are  in  the  orations  and  six  in  the  letters.    In  Plautus 
only  the  two  examples  quoted  above  of  the  substantive  stmthi 
with  the  genitive  were  found  and  in  Terence  none. 

While  this  small  number  of  cases  of  the  substantive  stmihs 
might  be  increased  indefinitely  by  another  investigator,  since  the 
question  is  largely  a  subjective  one,  there  are  cases  in  which  it  is 
practically  impossible  that  similis  with  the  genitive  is  a  substan- 
tive.  Such  are  cases  in  which  simUis  with  the  genitive  is  modi- 
fied by  an  adverb : 

MCf.  Cic.  Tnsc.  1-22,  Lael.  50,  Phil.  3-22. 

M  In  Juv.  5-132  and  elsewhere  similU  with  the  dative  looks  mnch  like  a 

"'.ror3-208,  Brut.  249.  Q.  Rose.  55,  Verr.  «;3;-^^3' ^^^^^^^^^^ 
Caec.  102,  103,  Clnent.  158.  Leg.  Agr.  2-77,  2-97,  Flac.  104   Phil.  2-2,3-18, 
10-3,  13.48,  Ad  Fam.  5-8-3,  7-1-4,  14-7-2,  Ad  Att.,  1-16-3  8  9_2  9-11-4, 
Acad.  2.91,  De  Fin.  4-49,  Tnsc.  1-22, 1-43,  Nat.  D.  2.81,  3-23,  Lael.  50. 


Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds     27 

PL  Amph.  442 :  Nimis  similest  mei. 

PL  Mil.  519:  Itast  ista  huius  similis  nostrai  tua. 

Ter.  Heaut.  1020 :  Tui  similis  est  probe. 

Ter.  Phor.  501 :  Qaam  uterque  est  similis  sui. 

Cic.  Quinct.  38:  Quis  tam  tui,  Sexte,  dissimilis. 

Cic.  Cat.  1-5:  Cum  jam  nemo  ....  tam  tui  similis  inveniri 

poterit. 
Cic.  Tusc.  1-81 :  Vita  omnium  perditorum  ita  similis. 
Cic.  Tusc.  3-23:  Metus  non  est  morbi  admodum  similis. 
Cic.  Legg.  1-29:  Sui  nemo  ipse  tam  similis  esset,  which  may 
be  compared  with  the  dative  in  same  construction  in  the  same 
flection :  Nihil  est  enim  unum  uni  tam  simile. 

Scarcely  less  clear  are  cases  like  the  following,  in  which  sinii- 
Us  with  the  genitive  is  parallel  with  another  adjective,  the  noun 
being  present.    Cic.  Div.   1-88:   Amphiaraus  et  Tiresias,  non 
humiles  et  obscuri  neque  eorum  similes  .  .  .  .  sed  clari  et  prae- 
stantes  viri,  qui  ...  .  futura  dicebant.    Cic.  Brut.  51 :  Rhodii 
saniores  et  Atticorum  similiores.    Cic.  Phil.  2-66:   Incredibile 
ac  simile  portenti  est.     Cic.  De  Or.  1-184 :  Haec  igitur  et  horum 
similia  jura  suae  civitatis  ignorantem  ....  prope  cunctis  civi- 
bus  lucem  ingenii  et  consilii  sui  porrigentem  ....  nonne  in- 
primis  flagitiosum  putandum  est?  Leg.  Agr.  3-5:  Omnium legum 
iniquissimam  dissimillimamque  legis  esse  arbitror  eam,  quam,  etc. 
Other  cases  in  which  si7niUs  with  the  genitive  does  not  seem 
to  be  a  substantive  are  such  as  the  following:  Cic.  Tusc.  5-45: 
Videamus  ne,  ut  acervus  ex  sui  generis  granis,  sic  beata  vita  ex 
flui  similibus  partibus  effici  debeat.  Phil.  1-5:  Nam  cum  .... 
magis  magisque  perditi  homines  cum  sui  similibus  servis  tectis 
ac  templis  urbis  minarentur.    Cluent.  79 :  Hanc  deinde  suspi- 
tionem  augeret  Staieni  improbitas  et  non  nullorum  eius  similium 

judicum  turpitude. 

Many  other  examples  might  be  given  to  illustrate  the  use  of 
similis  with  the  genitive  as  an  adjective.  For,  as  has  been  said, 
relatively  very  few  of  them  make  the  impression  that  similis  is 
used  as  a  substantive.  Other  examples,  however,  would  not 
make  the  case  more  clear  than  those  already  cited ;  so  the  list 
need  not  be  extended.®' 

87  The  following  passages  may  be  compared :  Cic.  De  Or.  1-189,  Or.  39, 
Verr.  2-3-163,  2-4-16,  De  Dom.  83,  Phil.  2-66,  Ad  Fam.  11-3-1,  Ad  Att. 
14-18-2,  Tusc.  1-43,  Div.  2-37,  Fat.  3,  De  Off.  1-81. 


28     Case  Coxstkcctioks  of  Simius  and  its  Compounds 

It  thus  appears  that  none  of  the  views  proposed  with  reference 
to  the  doable  case  construction  of  simiUs  and  its  compounds  ,8 
ratisfLtory.  It  remains,  therefore,  to  present  in  tabulated  form 
T^lZt  a  considerable  range  of  Latin  authors  as  to  the  con- 
struct'o;s  in  question  and  to  draw  the  conclusion  which  these 
statistics  yield. 

Fragments  of  the  Early  Poets. 

Since  the  passages  are  so  few,  they  may  be  cited. 

Genitive. 

Naevlus,  com.  fr.,  Ribbeck  60. 
Pol    bant     parasitomm    alionim 
[bic]  similest. 


Dative. 


Pacnvins,  Ribbeck  374. 
Id  magis  veri  simile. 


Enniiifl,  Satires,  Babrem  490,  Mul- 

ler  p.  86. 
Simla    quam  similis,    turplisima 
bestia,  nobis ! 


Lncillns,   Babrcna  232,  Muller  p. 

40. 
Qnod  pnero  similis. 

Accins,  Ribbeck  404. 

Silvani  melo 

Af  ranins,  Ribbeck  29.  Consimilem    ad  anrls  cantnm  et 

Terenti    nnmne     similem    dicent       anditnm  refert. 
qnempiam  ? 

Af  ranins,  Ribbeck  397. 
Ubi    qnid  repentino    bnins    con- 
simile  accidit. 

Novins,  Ribbeck  62. 
Tn  pncri  pansilli  simile  es. 
Laberins,  Ribbeck  124. 
Sepnlcri    similis  nil   nisi  nomen 
retineo. 

Besides,  Titinius,  Eibbeck  34,  has  persimilis,  but  the  case 

is  not  clear  (formicae).  , ,.        .  ». 

A  word  may  be  added  in  regard  to  some  of  these  fragments. 
For  instance,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  Cicero,  Nat.  Deo. 
1-97,  quoted  Ennius  correctly.''  In  writing  the  dative  here  for 
an  original  genitive,  to  say  nothing  of  the  common  usage  of  the 
older  poets,  he  would  have  violated  his  own  rule.  For  he  has 
only  one  instance  of  similis  with  the  dative  of  the  personal  pro- 
noun (De  Or.  3-47). 

»Cf.,   howeTer,  MuUer,  Q.  Ennlut,  pp.  1«9  .nd  271,  for  carelesinei.  of 
Cicero  in  quoting. 


f 


Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds     29 

In  the  Accins  passage  (Cic.  Nat.  Deo.  2-89)  rmlo  is  cited  by 
Georges  (Lex.  der  Lat.  Wort.  s.  v.)  as  ablatiye.  Ussing,  how- 
ever, (PI.  Amph.  595),  Ritschl  (Suet.  Rehq.  Reiff.  p.  523), 
and  Loch- take  it  as  dative.  Cf.  Nene  1-503  (1902).  In  a 
fragment  qnoted  in  Cicero,  Tnsc.  2-36,  Ribbeck  -  finds  the  genitive 
with  simiHs,  while  Baiter  and  Keyser  and  Mtiller  assign  the 
genitive  not  to  the  fragment  but  to  Cicero.  ^..      . 

In  Afranius  (Ribbeck  29),  quoted  in  the  Suetonian  Life  of 
Terence,  the  MSS  do  not  agree,  but  the  genitive  is  read  m  the 

best  MS.*^ 

table  I. 

Use  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds  in  Prose. 
Table  .bowing  timilis  and  Its  compounds  as  used  in  Cornificius,  Varro 
Cicero,  Livy  «  Quintilian,»»  Tacitus,  Suetonius,  Lactantius.  Firmicus.  and 
the  Vulgate.     The  genitive  of  the  personal  pronoun  and  verum  is  excluded ; 
also  elliptical  expressions. 


Genitive. 


S3    I- 


00 

3 

4J 


5   > 


3|d 


00 

d 

a 
o 

« 

3 


OB 
3 

3 

s 


DATrV'E. 


ao 

31* 

±5  3  O  s  « 


a 

•»     00 

3 

0 

3   si 


5 


n 

3 

u '  s 


similis 

dissimilis.  • .  •  • 

adsimilis 

consimilis 

persimilis 

absimills •  • ^ 

Persons  compared  with  persons,  8 
Things  compared  with  things..!  i 
Animals  compared  with  animalSj . . 
Persons  compared  with  things..].. 
Persons  compared  with  animals  i 
Things  compared  with  animals 

External  likeness 

Internal  likeness 

General  likeness  •* 


6  6144 

ll  13 


1 
1 

•  ■ 

65 

1     1 

2 

1 

2 

29 

73 

67 


6 


1 

2 


7    6  22166  43  63 


1  2 


9 

i 

■  • 

9 

13  69 
31  3 

..    3 

1  .. 
..  1 
2211 

2  39 
.26 


6 


12   61  4 
2 

i 

■  • 

17 


102410114 

•  .    3l 

1 


.   ■    {   •   • 


9 


33  62  3  316 
3 


6 

12  36 
27|17 

I 


8   3 

.14 
611 


•  •  • 

•  •  • 

61 

32 

9 

16 

7 

•  •  • 

24 
60 
41 


«»De  genltlvl  apud  priscos  scriptores  Latinos  usu,  Bartenstein  prog.  1880, 

»  Tr»g.  Rom.  Fragmenta,  ex  Incerti.  Incertorum  Fabulis,  806.  Cf.  Loch  aa 

cited. 

»» Ritschl,  Suet.  Reliq.  Rciflf.  p.  482. 

•"Livy,  Books  I-X  and  XXXI-XL. 

»» Quintilian,  Books  I-VI. 

•*Thl8  class,  of  no  consequence  in  this  study  but  added  for  completeness, 
includes  an  cases  not  clearly  involving  external  or  internal  likeness  exclu- 
sively.     There  are  many  such.     Cf.  p.  11  of  this  paper. 


30     Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds 


TABLE    II. 

Use  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds  in  Pobtrt. 

Table  showing  similis  and  its  compounds  as  used  in  Plautus,  Terence, 
Lucretius,  Vergil,  Lucan,  Silius  Italicus,  Martial  and  Juvenal.  The  geni- 
tive of  the  personal  pronoun  and  verum  is  excluded ;  also  elliptical  expres- 
sions. 


Genitive. 

Dative. 

3 
3 

• 

1 

• 

• 
3 

£ 

3 

• 

^  ! 

U    c 

• 

« 
3 
O 

• 

i  « 
:  e 

»  o 

is 

• 
00 

3 
3 

.2 

8 

e 

8 

3 

£ 

3 
1^ 

• 

• 

3 

i2 
9 
o 

1 

• 

OQ 

• 

1 

>• 

similis 

dissimilis 

adsimilis. . .  

consimilis 

persimllis 

16 

•  • 

1 
2 

•  • 

6 
6 

7 

•  • 

•  • 

1 

•  • 

8 

5 

8 

•  • 

•  ■ 

8 

•  • 

2 

4 

1. 

•  •      • 

•  •     • 

•  •     • 

•  •      • 

•  •  •      • 

•  •  •      • 
ft      ■  •      • 

•  •  •      • 

•  •  •      • 

•  •  • 
«     •  ■ 

•  •  • 

•  •  • 

•  •  • 

4 

•  • 

•  • 

•  • 

i 

8 

«  • 

•  • 

•  • 

17 
1 
1 

•  • 

•  • 

7 
ft 
8 
2 
2 

8 

1 

•  • 

•  • 

•  • 

1 
8 

•  • 

•  • 

•  • 

18 
2 

•  • 

•  • 

•  • 

9 

7 

•  • 

2 
2 

18 

•  • 

•  • 

•  • 

•  • 

8 

8 

1 

•  • 

1 

8 

2 

•  • 

•  • 

•  • 

8 

x^ersons  compareci  wrim  ucxbuub.  • 

1      ft 

8 

jLnings  njiiipcivcu  n iiu  tuiueo. . .•...•..••••« 

•  • 

1>o vfiTkn o  r^rtmnn 'TPrl  witVi  t.hlTlirS. .......  > 

6 
2 

•  • 

•  ■ 

•  • 

•  • 

•  •      • 

1. 

•      •  •      • 

•     •  • 

•  • 

•  • 

3 

'^)«&v.ar%T«ci  #«^%TviT\aif. A/1  n7 1  f Vk  a n  1  m A  1ft                 ...... 

1 

^^l«4v\rve!    #%^XTV1  Yka  1*0^    ^ITI^h     fk  D  1  TTin  1  S                    ...       .*.. 

W-v-t-oT-nol  lilronAftft           ........................ 

8 

1 
7 

6 

1  . 

4 

i 

4 

1 

18 
1 

•  • 

416 

11 
1 
1 

4 

JCtJiliKLLlai  lllkCWCSO. ...  ....  ....  ........  «....... 

16 

•  • 

•  • 

4 
1 

1 

/^^wKkTKil   IiItatiacq                                                   ..   ..    ..a...... 

1 

» 

vrcuorai  llKcuOBa • |-- 

1 

1 

Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds     31 


TABLE  III. 


Use  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds  in  Prose. 

Table  showing  use  of  similis  and  its  compounds 
otherwise  than  as  in  Table  I  in  authors  named  in 
that  table. 


Genitive. 


Use  of  Similis  and  its 
Compounds  in  Poetrt. 

Table  showing  use  of 
similis  and  its  com- 
pounds otherwise  than 
as  in  Table  II  in  authors 
named  in  that  table. 

Dative. 


• 

00 

3 
f^ 

c 

a 

O 

• 

1 

i 

3 

• 

> 

•J 

1 

c 

3 

• 
00 

2 

• 

3 
3 

2 

o 

3 
GQ 

00 

3 

C 

s 

• 

00 

3 

a 

•^^ 

o  i 

1 

3 
> 

00 

3 
3 

s 

• 
00 

3 

2 

3 

1 

• 

3- 
1^ 

• 

00 

3 

O 

"^ 

"oS 

l-H 

• 

OQ 

• 

i 

> 

3 
•-9 

Blmilis  mei 

5 
1 
9 
6 

86 

11 

2 

2 

2 

10 

4 

diRfliniilifl  mpi  .••••••. 

ftimiliR  tui 

1 

19 

8 

dlHSimiliB  tui 

sifTiilis  Riii 

1 

1 

•  •  • 

1 

1 

1 
... 

2 

diRRimilia  aui 

1 

fiimilis  noBtri 

2 

difiBimiliB  nostri 

similis  vestri 

8 
1 

1 

dissimilis  veatri 

Bimilia  mihi 

I 

similis  tlbi 

5 

10 

1 

2 

... 

1 
1 

8 

Bi mills  sibi 

Bimilia  nobis 

Bimilia  vobia 

Similis  veri 

similis  vero 

Bimilis  veria 

9 

•  •  • 

•  •  • 

•  •  • 

77 

•  •  • 

9 
2 
1 

•  •  • 

•  •  • 

10 
2 
1 
1 

2 

•  •  • 

6 

1 

•  •  • 

•  •  • 

•  •  • 

•  •  • 

•  •  • 

•  •  • 

Bimilia  inter  ba 

12 

4 

9 

12 

1 

1 

1 
8 

•  •  • 

•  •  • 

2 
9 

•  •  • 

•  •  • 

•  •  • 

dissimilis  inter  se. . . . 
Bimilis  intAF  nosmAt. . 

•  •  • 

•  •  • 

diRsimilis  intpr  vfia  .. 

>  •  • 

•  •  • 

Bimilis  intt»r  pob 

RimillH  atouB 

1 

• 

•  •  • 

... 

1 
2 

1 

8 

consimilis  a.taue 

similis  ac 

1 

•  • 

"i 

1 

Aim II in  AC  fti     - 

•  •  • 

diflfiiniilis  ac  ai 

1 

Bimilis  At 

2 

3 

1 

dissimilis  et 

Similis  -que 

Rimilinpt  si 

•  •  • 

•  «  • 

1 

AiniiliAiit 

•  •  • 

1 

ftimilifl  lit.  Ri 

1 

ainiiltR  rIc  lit - 

1 

RimillR  tAmniiiiiiri  Ri. 

ftimiliR  niiA  .   .-*   --.-- 

1 

fiimiliR  Olio     --..-.. 

1 

1 

fliiniliR  oiialla 

1 

ftimiliR  niiARi       .... 

AdftimiliR  niiflRi  ....... 

1 
2 

1 

coTiRimiliR  nuRRi 

* 

conRimiliR  vplnt 

dissimilis  in 

1 

diftRimiliR  all 

1 

32     Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds 

TABLE  IV. 

The  Usage  of  Cicebo. 

Table  showing  similis  and  its  componnds  as  used  in  Cicero.    The  genitive 
of  the  personal  pronoun  and  verum  is  excluded ;  also  elliptical  expressions. 


similis  

disslmilis 

adslmilis 

consimllls 

perslmilis  

Persons  compared  with  persons 

Things  compared  with  thing's — 

Animals  compared  with  animals 

Persons  compared  with  things 

Persons  compared  with  animals 

Things  compared  with  animals 

External  likeness 

Internal  likeness 

General  likeness 


Genitive. 


S 


8S 

7 


24 
16 


9 

8 

23 


a 

o 

O 


40 
2 


1 

26 
16 


4 

16 
21 


i 


16 


9 
6 


2 

12 
1 


I 


67 
4 


29 

27 

1 

1 

1 

2 

14 

88 

9 


Dative. 


I 

2 


16 


2 
17 


2 

6 
11 


a 
3 

g 

o 


8 
2 


2 

9 


i 


2 


I 

ft 


Pu 


86 
8 


28 
3 
1 


1 

8 

26 

6 


Table  showing  use  of  similis  and  Its  compounds  otherwise  than  as  above 
in  Cicero. 


similis  mei 

disslmilis  mei 

similis  tui 

disslmilis  tul 

similis  sui  

disslmilis  sui 

similis  nostri 

disslmilis  nostri 

similis  vestri 

disslmilis  vestri 

similis  mihi  

similis  veri 

similis  inter  se 

disslmilis  inter  se  . . 
similis  inter  nosmet. 
disslmilis  inter  vos. . 

similis  inter  eos 

similis  atque 

similis  ac  si 

similis  et 

similis  et  si 

similis  ut  si 

similis  tamquam  si.. 
similis  quasi 


1 

i 

• 

a 

1 

5 

1 

o 

2 


2 
2 


1 
16 

6 
12 


1 
1 
8 
4 

18 
6 


6 
1 

•  • 

22 
1 

•  • 

1 

•  • 

1 

•  • 


8 

•  • 

2 
2 
6 
1 
2 
2 
2 


-a 

a, 

S 

o 

mm 

0U 


1 

•  • 

•  • 

18 
2 

•  • 


86 
8 


1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 


Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds     33 


Remarks  on  the  Usage  of  Individual  Authors. 

Plautus, 

Besides  the  cases  shown  in  the  table  there  are  two  instances  of 
the  genitive  in  elliptical  expressions"  and  two  other  cases  in 
which  editors  read  the  genitive,  though  the  MSS  show  no  case  at 

Six  verses  deserve  special  mention."  They  are:  Amph.  601, 
Capt.  582,  Men.  1088  and  1089,  Mil.  240,  and  True.  505,  none  of 
which  are  preserved  in  the  Ambrosianus.  The  Palatine  recension 
shows  the  dative.  In  all  these  cases,  however,  Ritschl  read  the 
genitive,  regarding  this  the  current  construction  in  colloquial 
language  "  and  the  only  one  used  by  Plautus,"*  and  his  readings 
have  been  followed  by  most  succeeding  editors.'^  Engelbrecht, 
however,  (Stud.  Ter.  38),  Brix  (Capt.  116,  1884),  and  Lorenz 
(Mil.  240, 1886)  accept  Ritschl's  views  with  some  qualifications, 
while  Spengel  (Phil.  1861,  565),  Ott  (Zs.  f.  d.  ost.  Gym.  1871- 
149),  Ussing  (Amph.  595),  Drager  (Hist.  Syn.  1-445),  and  Fabia 
(Ter.  Eun.  334, 1895)  are  at  variance  with  his  conclusions. 

It  is  necessary,  therefore,  to  examine  these  cases  with  care,  and 
in  our  examination  of  them  to  keep  three  things  well  in  mind: 
(1)  that  the  dative  is  unquestioned  in  Ennius,^**^  (2)  that  the 
dative  is  the  prevailing  construction  with  the  comparative  of  5iw- 
ilis.^^  Ai>&Tt  from  veri  similius,  sui  similior^  etc.,  which  as  stereo- 
typed expressions  should  not  be  considered,  similis  in  the  com- 
parative is  seldom  used,  so  that  our  material  for  comparison  is 
limited.  It  occurs  once  in  Lucretius,  in  Varro  twice,  in  all  three 
cases  with  the  dative.  In  Cicero  it  is  found  five  times,'*'  twice 
with  the  genitive,  three  times  with  the  dative.  And  we  must  re- 
member (3)  that  there  is  no  MS  evidence  for  the  use  of  the  geni- 
tive with  the  comparative  of  similis  in  Plautus.'®*    On  the  other 

»  Amph.  267  and  Asin.  241.  »«Poen.  613  and  True.  507. 

*7The  Bacchides  fragment  19  (Gotz),  as  depending  on  the  grammarians 
need  not  be  here  considered. 

*  Op.  2-581.  »  Op.  2-572. 

»~  Lorenz,  Most.  88  (Ed.  1866),  Kuhnast,  Liv.  Syn.  125,  Lindsay,  Capt.  116, 
Brix-Niemeyer,  Men.  1088,  Loch  as  cited  on  p.  29  of  this  paper. 

»»» Cf.  p.  28  of  this  paper.  »m  Gildersleeve,  Gram.  p.  229. 

i»»Brut.  51  and  148,  Cluent.  88,  De  Fin.  4-80,  Div.  1-13.  In  Tusc.  4-53 
the  form  is  donbtfnL 

*<**  In  Mil.  552  the  better  readings  show  no  case,  the  inferior  ones  give  a 
form  that  may  be  either  genitive  or  dative. 


34     Case  Constructions  of  Simius  and  its  Compounds 

hand  in  the  only  three  instances  in  Plautus  in  which  the  com- 
parative  of  sirnilis  occurs  with  a  case  the  MSS  show  the  dative. 
The  instances  are:  Amph.  601 : 

Neque  lac  lacti  magls  est  simile  quam  ille  ego  similest  mel, 

and  Men.  1088-9 : 

Nam  ego  hominem  homini  simlliorem  numquam  vidi  alterum, 
Neque  aqua  aquae  neque  lactest  lacti,  crede  mihi,  usquam  similius. 

In  these  last  three  cases,  then,  in  view  of  the  facts  cited,  that 
the  dative  with  similis  is  not  questioned  in  Ennius,  that  the  MSS 
of  Plautus  show  no  instance  of  the  genitive  with  similis  in  the 
comparative,  and  that  later  the  dative  with  the  comparative  is 
the  prevalent  construction,  there  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  for 
changing  the  MS  reading.    Ritschl's  reasons  for  changing  the 
readings  are  singularly  inconclusive.^"^    For  example,  in  Men. 
1088  he  reads  hominis  for  the  MS  Jiomini,  because  tui  and  hums 
of  line  1090  demand  the  genitive  in  1088.    This  reasoning  not 
only  disregards  the  change  from  the  comparative  with  homini  to 
the  positive  with  tui  and  huius,  but  also  the  fact  that  ^wi  is  prac- 
tically stereotyped  in  such  expressions  as  we  have  here,  and,  if  any 
explanation  of  huius  were  necessary,  nothing  is  more  natural  than 
that  huius,  a  pronoun  used  of  a  person,  should  follow  the  stereo- 
typed personal  pronoun  tui.    And,  having  secured  thus,  by  re- 
vision,  a  dative  in  1088,  he  changes  lacti  of  1089  into  lactis  to  bnng 
it  into  agreement  with  1088  and  1090.    To  be  sure,  Plautus,  as 
Ritschl  contends,  will  use  only  the  genitive  with  similis,  if  all  his 
datives  are  changed  to  genitives.    It  seems  remarkable  that  in 
the  entire  discussion  of  these  passages  no  one  has  called  attention 
to  the  fact  that  comparatives  are  here  dealt  with. 

In  Mil.  240 :  Tam  similem  quam  lacte  lacti  est,  the  MSS  read 
lacti.  Here  Ussing  reads  lacti  est,  other  accessible  editors  lactist. 
This  lactist  Ritschl  and  other  editors  write  as  standing  for  an 
original  lactis  est.'""  But  the  reasons  for  considering  this  another 
instance  of  the  dative  in  Plautus  are  scarcely  less  conclusive  than 
in  the  three  verses  where  similis  in  the  comparative  is  used.  For, 
if  we  admit  the  dative  in  Plautus  at  all,  we  might  readily  admit 

it  in  this  tam quam  construction,  which  shows  a  distinct 

preference  for  the  dative.    Excluding  examples  of  the  genitive 

103  Op.  2-571  and  580. 

iM  Ritschl,  Op.  2-570,  Leo,  Forscli.  260,  Lorenz,  Brix,  and  Tyrrell  In  their 

notes. 


Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds     35 

of  the  personal  pronoun  with  similis  and  De  Off.  1-121,  where  the 

MSS  differ,  there  are  four  tam quam  correlations  in  Cicero 

in  which  similis  with  a  case  occurs.^^  In  one  of  these  the  geni- 
tive is  used,  in  three  the  dative,  the  dative  once  when  a  person  is 
involved  (Brut.  204)  in  spite  of  Cicero's  strong  preference  for  the 
genitive  in  such  cases.^**  Besides,  sifnilis  with  either  tam  or  quam 
without  the  correlative  shows  the  same  preference  for  the  dative 
that  the  correlation  shows.  Thus  sirnilis  with  a  case  occurs  in 
two  sentences  in  Cicero  with  the  exclamatory  quam,  and  both 
times  the  dative  is  found.'^  Likewise,  disregarding  the  genitive 
of  the  personal  pronoun,  tain  similis  with  a  case  is  found  only 
once  in  Cicero  and  this  once  with  the  dative  though  persons  are 
compared.'*®*  The  preference  that  sirnilis  shows  for  the  dative  in 
these  tam  and  quam  sentences  is  no  doubt  accounted  for,  as  in 
cases  of  similis  in  the  comparative,  by  the  stress  laid  on  the  ad- 
jective nature  of  similis  by  the  comparison  in  the  one  case 
and  by  the  modifying  adverb  in  the  other.  How  strong  this 
preference  is  may  be  seea  in  the  fact  that  the  tain  and  quam 
sentences  in  Cicero  show  in  round  numbers  a  per  cent  of  in- 
stances of  similis  with  the  dative  of  the  person  ten  times  greater 
than  normal. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  of  these  four  datives  under  discus- 
sion in  Plautus  three  are  found  in  a  comparison  of  milk  with 
niilk,"°  while  the  fourth »"  one  stands  in  immediate  connection 
with  this  comparison  (which  appears  again  in  Bac.  fr.  19,  Gotz,"* 
where  the  reading,  as  depending  on  grammarians  and  variously 
quoted  in  the  critical  notes  of  Gotz,  Leo,  and  Ussing,  need  not 
here  be  considered).  This  milk  comparison,  therefore,  is  evi- 
dently proverbial,  and  it  is,  to  say  the  least,  interesting  to  note  a 
verysimiliar  proverb  in  Quintilian,  5-11-30:  illud,  Non  ovum 
tam  simile  ovo.  Here  is  the  proverb  (marked  by  illud)  as  in 
Plautus,  here  is  the  tam  as  in  Plautus,  and  here  is  the  dative  as 

><"  With  dative  Brut.  204,  Cato  80,  Legg.  1-29 ;  with  genitive  Brut.  285. 

»w  In  comparing  persons,  exclusive  of  personal  pronouns,  Cicero  uses  the 
genitive  88  times,  the  dative  9  times. 

»«»  Verr.  3-4-77,  Nat.  Deo.  1-97,  a  quotation  from  Ennius.  In  Phil.  2-26 
the  interrogative  quam  is  found  with  veri  similey  but  veri  simile  is  constant 
till  after  Cicero. 

lowiDeFin.  5-62. 

"0  Amph.  601,  Men.  1089,  Mil.  240.  "» Men.  1088. 

»»«Cf.  Peine,  Diss.  De  Dativi  Usu  apud  Priscos  Scriptores  Latinos, 
p.  93. 


i\ 


36     Case  Coxstructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds 

in  the  MSS  of  Plautus.    Moreover,  the  stereotyped  form  of  pro- 
Terbial  speech  must  not  be  forgotten."' 

In  view  of  all  the  facts  the  conclusion  seems  warranted  that 
in  Amph.  601,  Men.  1088  and  1089,  and  Mil.  240  the  dative, 
which  the  MSS  of  Plautus  show,  should  be  retained. 

Only  two  other  passages  In  Plautus  need  to  be  noted.  In  Capt. 
582  the  MSS  read  omnis  inveniri  (MSS  -ire)  similis  tibi  vis,  and  in 
True.  505  the  MSS,  differing  in  other  respects,  agree  in  reading 
mihi.  Now,  since  in  the  four  passages  just  discussed,  the  dative 
is  to  be  retained,  since  an  unquestioned  dative  of  the  personal  pro- 
noun with  similis  is  found  in  Ennius"*  on  the  one  hand  and  in 
Cicero"*  on  the  other,  there  is  certainly  no  imperative  reason  for 
departing  from  the  reading  of  the  MSS  in  Capt.  582  and  True. 
505."« 

Terence. 

There  are  only  two  passages  that  call  for  special  notice.  One 
of  these  is  Heaut.  382,  which  Umpfenbach  reads  thus;  Id  cum 
studuisti,  isti  formae  ut  mores  consimiles  forent.  This  is  like- 
wise the  reading  of  all  accessible  editors  except  Fleckeisen  "^ 
and  Shuckburgh,  who  read  as  follows:  Id  tu  quom  studuisti, 
formae  ut  mores  consimiles  forent.  The  omission  of  isti  by 
DEG,  requiring,  as  it  does,  compensation  elsewhere  in  the  verse, 
does  not  commend  itself  against  the  testimony  of  the  other  MSS, 
especially  since  the  omission  would  easily  be  explained  by  the 
preceding  isti.  The  word  must,  therefore,  be  accounted  for  as  it 
stands.    There  are  three  possible  explanations. 

(1)  It  may  be  regarded  as  genitive  =istius.  Georges  cites  this 
place  with  Plautus,  True.  930  (which  Spengel  suspects)  and  Cato, 
fr.  oratt.  20 "»  (Jordan),  as  examples  of  the  genitive  isti.  So 
Wagner "» explained  it,  as  also  Neue  2-398  (1892).  But  it  is  to 
be  noted  that  in  the  other  two  cases  cited  isti  is  used  in  connec- 
tion with  modi,  and  Buecheler  (Lat.  Dek.  78)  and  Engelbrecht 

'"  Cf.  Ott,  Zs.  f.  d.  ost.  Gym.  22-149,  who  regards  the  dative  as  constant 
in  this  milk  proverb  of  Plantns.  Cf.  also  Ott,  Sprichworter  der  Romer  p. 
183,  and  8utphen,  Amer.  Jonr.  Phil.  22-144. 

"♦  Cic.  Nat.  Deo.  1-97.  ii5  De  Or.  8-47. 

"«In  Capt.  582  Ussing,  Sonnenschein,  and  Hallidie  retain  tibi,  and  Brix 
(Capt.  116)  also  accepts  it.  In  True.  505  Ussing  reads  mihi  and  Brix  (Capt. 
116)  accepts  it. 

117  Bnt  Fleckeisen  in  ed.  of  1898  returned  to  isti. 

>>8  Also  Accius,  fr.  136  (Ribbeck),  but  the  MSS  have  istiu». 

»•  Cf.  the  notes  of  Shuckburgh  and  Gray. 


f 


Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds     37 

(Stud.  Terent.  38)  limit  this  form  of  the  genitive  to  the  combina- 
tion with  modi.  In  this  place,  then,  isti  cannot  be  said  to  be 
satisfactory  as  a  genitive. 

(2)  Dziatzko  in  his  critical  note  construes  isti  with  snores  and 
suggests  the  order:  isti  ut  mores  formae.  This  explanation  does 
not  commend  itself  for  two  reasons.  As  Dziatzko's  proposed 
transposition  indicates,  the  position  of  isti  favors  construing  it 
with  formae.  The  sense,  too,  favors  this  construction,  for  the 
forma,  as  something  clearly  perceived,  serves  as  the  standard  of 
comparison,  while,  as  v.  384  shows,  the  mores  is  a  matter  of  in- 
ference. 

(3)  It  may  be  dative  with  for7nae.  This  is  a  more  satisfactory 
explanation,  since  the  dative  form  is  regular  while  the  genitive  is 
hardly  admissible,  and  since  neither  sense  nor  position  favors  the 
nominative.  Engelbrecht  takes  it  to  be  dative,  remarking  that 
even  if  the  genitive  predominated  with  similis  in  the  comic  poets, 
specially  Plautus,  it  need  not  surprise  us  to  find  the  dative  in  the 
more  elegant  plays  of  Terence,  and  this  observation  has  added 
force,  since  it  has  been  made  very  probable  that  the  dative  is 
found  in  Plautus.  Schleuter  ^'^  and  Peine "'  agree  with  Engel- 
brecht in  regarding  isti  as  dative  here. 

The  other  case  is  Eun.  468.  Here  Umpfenbach  reads :  Per- 
pulchra  credo  dona  aut  nostri  similia.  A  reads  nostri.  The 
other  MSS  read  nostris,  as  do  Priscian  (K.  3-34  and  115)  and 
Donatus.  Neglecting  Ritschl's  suggestion  of  nostrum  =  mstrO" 
rum  *"  as  without  MS  authority,  the  readings  nostris  and  nostn 
are  to  be  considered. 

Nostris.  This  reading  is  not  sustained  by  the  best  MS,  but  it 
is  easy  to  see  how  the  copyist  might  have  written  nostri  for 
nostris.  In  view  of  the  stereotyped  genitives  of  the  personal  pro- 
noun with  similiSy  mei,  tui,  nostri,  etc.,  force  of  habit  on  the  part 
of  the  scribe  might  have  induced  nostri  here,  and  besides  the 
initial  5  of  the  next  word  might  have  contributed  to  the  same 
result.  Fabia's  objection  to  nostris  on  the  ground  that,  the  re- 
ference being  to  Pamphila  only,  the  sense  requires  the  singular, 
is  not  of  considerable  weight  The  reference  might  easily  be  to 
the  soldier's  gifts  generally."*    With  nostris  the  meaning  is  per- 

**  De  Ace.  et  Dat.  Usu  Terentiano  p.  36. 

">  De  Dat.  Usu  apud  Pris.  Scriptt.  Lat.  p.  91. 

"« Engelbrecht,  Stud.  Ter.  88. 

»»Cf.  Sonnenschein,  Bud.  728,  Brix,  Men.  290,  739,  803. 


38     Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds 

fectly  clear,  while  fiostri  is  quite  misleading,  as  will  be  shown 
below.  Furthermore,  the  dative  of  the  possessive  pronoun,  the 
noun  being  omitted,  is  found  elsewhere  with  similis.  Varro,  L.  L. 
10-71:  tertia  parum  nostris  similia.     Lucan  9-514: 

Stat  sortiger  illit 
Juppiter,  Qt  memorant,  sed  non  ant  fulmina  yibrans 
Ant  similis  nostro. 

Bentley  and  Klotz  read  iiosiriSj  which  is  likewise  accepted  by 
TJssing,  PI.  Amph.  595  and  Lorenz,  Mil.  240.  But  in  view  of  the 
reading  of  the  best  MS  7wstris  should  not  be  insisted  upon. 

Nbstri.  If,  with  the  best  MS,  we  read  iwsiri,  the  form  may  be 
either  the  genitive  plural  of  the  personal  pronoun,  or  the  geni- 
tive singular  of  the  possessive  pronoun.  Taking  fiostri  to  be  the 
genitive  plural  of  the  personal  pronoun,  there  is  of  course  ellip- 
sis, nostri  similia,  like  (the  gifts  of)  us.  This  ellipsis  is  by  no 
means  uncommon  in  early  or  later  Latin.  A  good  example  is 
found  in  PL  Amph.  267: 

Et  enim  vero  qnoniam  formam  cepi  huins  in  med  ct  statam, 
Decet  et  facta  moresque  huius  habere  me  similes  item. 

But  the  elision  here  would  be  so  harsh  that  we  cannot  regard 
Tiostri  as  the  genitive  of  the  personal  pronoun.  It  may,  however, 
be  the  genitive  singular  of  the  possessive  pronoun.  So  Papillon 
and  Fabia  regard  it,  making  it  agree  with  a  suppressed  doni. 
Such  a  construction  is  misleading,  to  say  the  least.  For  the 
genitive  of  the  personal  pronoun  with  similis  is  extremely 
common  with  stereotyped  meaning:  similis  mei,  tui,  nostri, 
vestri,  sui,  like  me,  like  you,  like  us,  etc.  Hence  to  replace  the 
genitive  of  the  personal  pronoun  with  similis  by  a  possessive  of 
the  same  form  is  wholly  unexpected  and  misleading.  Indeed  no 
such  possessive  nostri,  vestri,  mei,  or  tui,  the  noun  being  omitted, 
has  been  noticed.  There  is,  however,  one  case  of  sui  thus  used. 
It  is  found  iniCic.  Off.  1-121:  superioris  filius  Africani,  qui 
hunc  Paulo  natum  adoptavit,  propter  infirmitatem  valetudinia 
non  tam  potuit  patris  similis  esse,  quam  ille  fuerat  sui.  Here, 
however,  sui  is  disjoined  from  similis,  and  it  is  easy  to  supply 
the  preceding  patris  after  sui.  But  in  our  passage  nostri  is 
joined  immediately  to  similia  in  a  most  misleading  way,  and  do7ii 
with  changed  number  and  case  is  not  easy  to  understand  from 
the  preceding  dona.  Still  the  reading  nostri  found  in  Umpfen- 
bach,  Papillon,  Fleckeisen,  Dziatzko,  Fabia,  and  Tyrrell,  is  per- 


f 


Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds     39 

haps  to  be  retained,  since  it  rests  on  the  best  MS  and  is  sup- 
ported  by  the  parallel  construction  in  Cicero.  Cf.  also  Job,  16-4 : 
Poteram  et  ego  similia  vestri  loqui. 

Lucretius. 

On  the  cu7n  et  cum  construction  of  2-416  and  5-1060  and  the 
qui  et  qui  construction  of  2-419  cf.  Munro,  Lucretius,  1-280. 
See  also  for  '  -que '  of  comparison  remarks  on  Livy  in  this  paper 

Vergil, 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  Vergil  uses  the  genitive  with  similis  only 
once  (Aen.  5-594).  It  is  also  worthy  of  remark  that  of  the  nine- 
teen  datives  with  similis  seven  are  datives  of  the  present  parti- 
ciple.  ^ 

Livy. 

Only  eight  genitives  are  found  in  the  two  decades  examined 
(I-X,  XXXI-XL),  and  six  of  these  occur  in  the  first  decade. 
The  percentage,  too,  is  higher  in  the  first  decade.  Of  these  eight 
genitives  three  are  personal  names,  two  are  pronouns  referring  to 
persons,  and  two  are  nouns  denoting  persons.  The  remaining 
gemtiveprodigii  (31-12-8)  is  no  doubt  influenced  by  the  genitive 
hitherto  constant  in  such  expressions  as  mo7istri,  portent i,  prodi- 
gii  si7nilis. 

On  the  contrary,  it  may  be  observed,  as  evidence  of  the  declin- 
ing genitive  that  Livy  uses  portento  similis  twice  and  that  simi- 
Ims  vero '''  in  two  places  in  the  first  decade  replaces  veri  constant 
in  earlier  authors. 

Bk.  10-28-1,  haudquaquam  similis  pugna  in  dextro  laevoque 
cornu  erat,  shows  a  -que  which  is  no  less  comparative  than  the 
comparative  et.  Cf.  Munro,  Lucretius,  1-280,  Kuhner,  2-636,  and 
Drager,  2-29. 

Silius  Italicus. 
The  present  participle  in  the  dative  occurs  five  times  with 
stmilis.    Cf.  Vergil's  use  of  the  present  participle  with  similis. 

Martial. 

Martial  1-109-19  is  cited  for  similis  in  the  sense  of  likeness 
followed  by  the  accusative  in  apposition. 

'"But  cf.  Haase,  Vorl.  2-141  on  Cic.  Ad.  Fam.  13-5-1.  Cf.  also  for 
i-lvj  8  nsage  Haase,  note  to  Reisig,  8-631  and  Kiihnast,  Llv.  Syn.  p.  135. 


40     Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds 

Tacitus. 

Dissimilis  in  is  found  once.  Ann.  2-39 :  Aetate  et  forma  hand 
dissimili  in  dominum  erat.  As  substantive  with  the  dative  simi- 
lis is  found  in  Hist.  3-83:  juxta  scorta  et  scortis  similes.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  only  genitive  is  found  in  a  passage  in  which 
the  comparative  is  used.  Hist.  3-76:  lascivia  socordiaque  gladi- 
atorum  magis  quam  ducum  similes.  The  earlier  distinctions  are 
here  reversed. 

Juve)ial. 

Kesembling  a  substantive  with  the  dative  similis  is  found  in 
5-132  and  8-53,  whereas  the  only  genitive  (sui)  is  used  with  dis- 
similis as  an  adjective. 

In  2-6  is  found  similem  as  a  substantive  in  the  sense  of  like- 
ness, apparently  in  apposition.  (Mart.  1-109-19,  Statius,  Silv. 
3-3-201  and  5-1-1  are  cited  as  showing  this  later  and  unusual 
construction.) 

Smtonius, 

Of  the  fourteen  datives  two  are  present,  three  perfect  parti- 
ciples. 

Lactantius. 

The  solitary  genitive  is  found  in  2-4-2:  Cum  aves  ipsae  .  .  . 
simulacris  fabre  factis,  id  est,  hominum  plane  similibus,  insidant. 

The  Vulgate, 

Dissimilis  with  ab  and  the  ablative  occurs  once.  Dan.  7-19 : 
Post  hoc  volui  diligenter  discere  de  bestia  quarta,  quae  erat  dis- 
similis valde  ab  omnibus  et  terribilis  nimis. 

Some  cases  of  interchange  between  genitive  and  dative  of  pro- 
nouns are  worth  noticing.  Here  there  is  no  distinction  made 
between  the  cases. 

Gen.  2-18 :  Faciamus  ei  adjutorium  simile  sibi. 

Gen.  2-20:  Adae  vero  non  inveniebatur  adjutor  similis  ejus. 

Eccli.  13-20:  Omnis  caro  ad  similem  sibi  conjungetur,  et 

omnis  homo  simili  sui  sociabitur. 

Eccli.  45-7:  Excelsum  fecit  Aaron  fratrem  ejus  et  similem 
sibi  de  tribu  Levi. 

The  dative  of  the  participle  occurs  with  similis  once. 
♦  ««*«» 

A  glance  at  the  table  shows: 

(1)  That  the  dative  with  similis  runs  through  all  periods  and 
departments  of  the  language. 


Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds     41 

(2)  That  the  genitive  with  similis  (except  in  set  phrases)  prac- 
tically belongs  to  the  earlier  periods  of  the  language. 

(3)  That  the  genitive  with  similis  is  almost  wholly  excluded 
from  the  higher  forms  of  poetry."* 

(4)  That  the  genitive  with  similis  prevails  very  largely  in  the 
comic  poets,  falls  behind  the  dative  by  a  half  in  Lucretius  and 
by  nearly  three-fourths  in  Varro,  but  in  Cornificius  is  equal  to 
the  dative,  and  in  Cicero,"«  who  uses  the  genitive  far  more  than 
any  other  writer  except  the  comic  poets,  is  relatively  much  more 
frequent  in  those  writings  which  have  much  in  common  with 
conversational  language  (i.  e.  in  the  warm,  personal  orations  and 
letters)  than  in  the  rhetorical  and  philosophical  works. 

The  conclusion  would  seem  to  be  that,  while  similis  with  the  da- 
tive IS  a  natural  construction  in  all  periods  of  the  language,  the 
genitive  is  used  mainly  in  periods  and  departments  which  mark  it 
as  an  inheritance  from  the  common  speech  that  passed  into  the 
literary  language,  suffered  an  early  decline,  and  finally,  except  in 
the  significant  formula  noted  below,  fell  into  disuse. 

The  origin  of  the  construction  of  similis  with  the  genitive  is 
probably  to  be  sought  in  the  familiar  combination  of  si7nilis  v^ith 
the  genitive  of  the  personal  pronoun.    For  it  is  a  most  note- 
worthy fact  that,  while  the  dative  supplants  the  genitive  every- 
where else  (a  partial  exception  being  found  in  veri  simile  ^"),  the 
combination  of  similis  with  the  genitive  of  the  personal  pronoun 
persists  through  every  period  and  range  of  the  language,  the  Vul- 
gate, however,  showing  similis  with  the  dative  of  the  personal  pro- 
noun quite  f requently."«    In  the  nature  of  the  case,  similis  with 
the  personal  pronoun  is  an  easy,  familiar,  colloquial  form  of  speech. 
And  so,  exclusive  of  similis  with  sui  (which  in  view  of  its  fre- 
quent reference  to  non.personal  objects  is  manifestly  less  strictly 
personal  than  the  other  persons  of  the  personal  pronoun),  simi- 
lis with  the  genitive  of  the  personal  pronoun  occurs  sixteen  times 
in  the  orations  of  Cicero  and  thirteen  times  in  the  letters,  while 

'25 Tables  are  very  incomplete  for  poetry,  to  be  sure.     Cf.,  however,  Wil- 
kins  on  Clc.  De  Or.  3-47,  who  finds  only  two  examples  of  the  genitive  in  the 
Augustan  poets,  Verg.  Aen.  5-594  and  Hor.  Sat.  2-1-3.     Cf.  also  Madvig 
Uc.  De  Fin.  5-12,  Ritschl,  Op.  2-581,  Engelbrecht,  Stud.  Ter.  p.  38. 

'"For  Cicero  as  "antiquated"  see  Teuffel  I.  p.  250. 

>"  In  this  combination  constantly  in  use  the  familiar  genitive  with  similis 
became  stereotyped. 

'^Cf.  Bennett  and  Bristol,  the  Teaching  of  Latin  and  Greek,  p.  139,  for 
the  crowding  out  of  the  genitive  by  the  dative. 


42     Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds 


in  all  the  other  writings  of  Cicero  it  is  found  only  five  times. 
Likewise,  in  the  comic  poets  the  construction  is  found  eight  times, 
while  in  all  the  other  poetical  authors  examined  it  occurs  once 
only,  and  that  in  a  superheated  personal  passage,  Lucan,  6-244. 
Moreover,  in  many  of  these  combinations  similis  is  used  with- 
out a  substantive,  that  is,  similis  is  used  as  a  substantive.  In- 
deed in  Cicero,  of  the  twenty-nine  examples  of  the  substantive 
similis  with  the  genitive,  twenty  are  genitives  of  personal  pro- 
nouns.^^  Used  as  a  substantive  similis  would  naturally  be  con- 
strued with  the  genitive,  as  in  Plautus,  Persa  698 : 

Videor  vidisse  hie  forma  peraimilem  tni.^^o 

**  the  very  image  of  you."  Here,  then,  we  probably  have  the 
origin  of  similis  with  the  genitive.  It  began  in  combinations 
of  a  substantive  similis  with  the  genitive  of  a  personal  pro- 
noun. The  substantive  similis  thus  taking  first  the  genitive 
of  the  personal  pronoun,  would  then  easily  take  the  genitive  of 
other  pronouns  referring  to  persons  and  the  genitive  of  personal 
names,  then  the  genitive  of  names  of  things,  and  meantime  the 
construction  of  the  non- substantive  similis  with  the  genitive 
would  be  a  further  easy  extension.  And,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it 
is  found  that  in  the  twenty-nine  examples  of  the  genitive  with 
the  substantive  similis  in  Cicero  the  genitive  of  the  personal  pro- 
noun occurs  twenty  times,  of  other  pronouns  six  times,  of  names 
of  persons  twice,  and  of  the  name  of  a  thing  once. 

This  view  that  similis  with  the  genitive  is  colloquial  "*  finds 
striking  confirmation  in  certain  passages  of  Cicero  in  which,  ac- 
cording to  Landgraf,^^^  marks  of  the  common  speech  are  found. 
For,  considering  the  relative  infrequency  with  which  both  the 
colloquialisms  of  Landgraf  and  similis  with  the  genitive  occur, 
it  will  be  observed  that  they  are  found  together  with  surprising 
frequency.    A  few  instances  may  be  given. 

Landgraf  and  Wolfflin  "*  assign  diminutives  in  -cuius  to  the 
common  speech.  Cf.  with  this  statement  Cic.  Nat.  Deo.  1-123: 
Neque  enim  tam  desipiens  fuisset,  ut  homunculi  similem  deum 

>»Cf.  p.  26  of  this  paper. 

1^  Cf.  for  imago  so  used  Plautas,  Cas.  515,  Nunc  amicine  anne  iDimici  sis 
imago,  Alcesime,  mihi  sciam. 
»3»  Cf.  Ritschl,  Op.  2-581. 

i3>  Blatter  f.  d.  Bayerische  Gymnasial-  and  Real-Schulwesen,  1880. 
»MPhil.  35-153.     Cf.  Teuf.  I.  214-9. 


Case  Constructioxs  of  Similis  axd  its  Compounds     43 

fingeret.  Or.  67:  Nisi  quod  versiculi  sunt,  nihil  est  aliud 
cotidiani  dissimile  sermonis,  and  Verr.  2-3-155 :  Volo,  mi  frater 
fraterculo  tuo  credas.  Consorti  quidem  in  lucris  atque  (in)  fur- 
tis,  gemmo  et  simillimo  nequitia,  improbitate,  audacia.  In  the 
last  example,  which  shows  a  substantive  similis,  is  likewise  asyn- 
deton, which  Landgraf  (324)  mentions  as  a  mark  of  the  common 
speech. 

Landgraf  (322)  assigns  7mmis  minusque  to  the  common  speech. 
Cf.  with  this  statement  Cic.  Phil.  1-5:  et  cotidie  magis  magis- 
que  perditi  homines  cum  sui  similibus  servis  tectis  ac  templis 
urbis  minarentur. 

Thie  expression  tela  texere  was  not  noticed  in  Landgraf's  list  of 
colloquialisms.  It  is  found  in  Plautus,  however,  (Pseud.  400) 
and  surely  has  the  tone  of  common  speech.  With  this  compare 
Cic.  De  Or.  3-226  where  similis  is  substantive:  quamquam  ea 
tela  texitur  .  .  .  .  ut  eorum  civium,  quos  nostri  patres  non  tule- 
runt,  jam  similes  habere  cupiamus.  In  tela  texitur  is  the  alii- 
teration,  too,  which  Landgraf  (329)  likewise  assigns  to  the  com- 
mon speech.  These  passages  may  serve  as  an  indication  of  the 
company  similis  with  the  genitive  keeps. 

Finally,  from  another  stand-point,  a  still  more  striking  con- 
firmation of  the  correctness  of  the  view  that  simUis  with  the  geni- 
tive is  an  extension  of  a  colloquial  use  of  which  similis  with  the 
genitive  of  the  personal  pronoun  is  the  germ,  is  found  in  the 
fact  that  this  view  is  easily  seen  to  explain  the  partial  truth 
contained  m  all  the  other  theories  that  have  been  advanced  on  this 
subject. 

First,  there  is  the  theory  of  the  old  Latin  grammarians  that 
the  genitive  is  used  of  inner,  the  dative  of  outer  likeness.  Taking 
into  account  the  genitive  of  the  personal  pronoun  with  similis 
this  IS  true,  the  reason  being  that  the  comparison  would  usually 
be  made  in  view  of  likeness  in  character.  So  in  our  language 
*  the  like  of  you,'  etc.  is  used  of  likeness  in  character. 

Then,  too,  Madvig's  distinction  for  Cicero,  that  the  genitive  is 
mainly  used  of  persons,  is  just  what  would  be  expected  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  the  germ  of  the  construction  was  the  genitive  of 
the  personal  pronoun. 

Haase's  explanation,  also,  that  similis  with  the  genitive  means 
EhenUld,  Ahhild,  image,  is  largely  true,  if  limited  to  this  con- 
Btruction  in  its  original  form  of  similis  with  the  genitive  of  the 


44     Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds 

personal  pronoun.    Used  with  such  a  genitive  similis  is  often 
equivalent  to  EhenbiW^^ 

Likewise,  the  single  remaining  theory,  that  similis  with  the 
genitive  is  a  substantive,  finds  its  basis  in  the  original  construc- 
tion of  similis  with  the  genitive  of  the  personal  pronoun,  in 
which,  when  the  substantive  was  omitted,  similis  itself  was  used 
as  a  substantive.    Cf.  the  example  in  Plautus,  Persa  698 : 

Videor  yidisse  bic  forma  perslmilem  tni. 

To  summarize,  therefore :  the  statement  of  the  facts  with  refer- 
ence to  the  double  case  construction  of  similis  may  be  made  thus. 
The  genitiye  with  similis  very  probably  had  its  origin  in  the  col- 
loquial use  of  the  substantive  similis  with  the  genitive  of  the  per- 
sonal pronoun.  This  easily  extended  to  the  genitive  of  other  pro- 
nouns referring  to  persons  and  to  the  genitive  of  the  names  of 
persons,  and  finally  to  the  genitive  of  the  names  of  things,  while, 
in  the  process  of  extension,  the  genitive  came  to  be  used  with  the 
adjective  as  well  as  with  the  substantive  similis.  The  construc- 
tion with  the  genitive  reached  its  highest  point  in  those  works  of 
Cicero,  which  in  their  warm,  personal  quality  stand  nearest  to 
the  common  speech.  After  Cicero,  however,  the  dative,  which, 
as  the  normal  construction,  was  used  from  the  earliest  times,  re- 
placed, under  the  influence  of  poetic  usage,^**  the  old  and  collo- 
quial genitive. 

There  was,  however,  a  period,  specially  represented  by  Cicero, 
in  which  both  genitive  and  dative  with  similis  were  in  common 
use.  Within  this  period,  when,  on  the  one  hand,  the  substantive 
nature  of  similis  is  prominent,  the  preference  for  the  genitive 
practically  excluded  the  dative,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  when  the 
adjective  nature  of  similis  is  stressed,  as  by  the  comparative  de- 
gree, the  tarn  .  .  .  qiiaryi  correlation,  or  the  exclamatory  j'waw, 
the  dative  is  very  distinctly  preferred.  Between  these  extremes 
there  is  a  wide  middle  ground  in  which  genitive  and  dative  are 
used  with  no  perceptible  difference  in  meaning. 

It  may  be  worth  while  to  add  that  a  careful  examination  of  the 
orations  and  philosophical  works  of  Cicero  serves  to  show  that 
the  relative  position  of  words  has  no  influence  on  the  case  con- 

i»*Cf.  p.  26  of  this  paper. 

iwFor  the  influence  of  the  poets  in  a  general  way  in  producing  the  liter- 
ary language  from  the  common  speech  cf .  Wolfflin,  Phil.  34-149.  Cf.  Teuf. 
I.  pp.  250  and  411  and  II.  pp.  4  and  7. 


Case  Constructions  of  Similis  and  its  Compounds     45 


struction.  Since  similis^  the  verb,  where  there  is  one,  and  the 
two  objects  compared  are  all  concerned  in  the  arrangement,  the 
order  varies  very  much,  but  the  arrangements  more  frequently 
occurring  are  common  to  both  genitive  and  dative. 

Special  treatment  of  the  compounds  of  sifnilis  is  not  necessary. 
The  tables,  pages  29,  32,  show  that  the  compounds  follow  the 
construction  of  the  simple  adjective. 

A  glance  at  the  table  on  page  31  will  show  how  very  rarely 
similis  is  used  with  other  constructions  than  the  genitive  and 
the  dative.  Several  of  these  constructions,  as  similis  ac  si,  et  si, 
ut  si,  tamquam  si,  and  others,  are  found  only  once. 


LIFE. 

.  Thomas  Madison  Jones  was  born  near  Doe  Hill,  Highland  Co., 
Va.,  August  4, 1860.   He  attended  the  public  schools  of  his  county 
for  several  years,  but  most  of  his  early  education  is  due  to  James 
W.  Johnson,  under  whose  care  for  nine  months  he  received  invalu- 
able training.    In  1885  he  became  a  member  of  the  Baltimore 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  in 
1891  went  to  Randolph- Macon  College  as  a  student  at  the  age 
of  thirty-one.     He  graduated  with  the  degree  of  A.  B.  in  1894, 
and  the  following  year  taught  in  Randolph-Macon  Academy  at 
Bedford  City,  Va.    He  was  a  graduate  student  of  Latin,  Greek 
and  German  at  the  Johns    Hopkins  University  for  the  years 
1895-1898,  where  it  was  his  privilege  to  be  under  the  instruction 
of  Professors  Warren,  Smith,  Gildersleeve,  and  Wood.     He  held 
a  University  scholarship  in  Latin  in  the  last  year  of  his  residence 
and  was  recommended  by  the  department  of  Latin  for  appoint- 
ment to  a  fellowship  for  the  following  year.    For  the  next  two 
years,   1898-1900,   he  was  Professor  of  Ancient  Languages  in 
Emory  and  Henry  College,  attended  the  University  of  Chicago 
in  the  summer  of  1900,  and  since  June,  1900,  has  been  Professor 
of  Greek  in  Randolph-Macon  College. 


